;dgluu‘u‘l'~-o

 

 

 

 

v
u
m

. ...

1m.» .2. s Efififiyfigfié. :4

 

THESlS

2

IliumIli‘illlllllu‘lfilllllllmull

31293 018017511

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

"Development Of A Machinery and Nutrient Management
Model For Manure Transport."

presented by

Takako Inagaki

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M. S . degree in Agricultural Engineering

fi/

 

Major professor 1

Date Alou (O; qug

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINE return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE I DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

‘ iiii’vlf 1°2500%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1M W14

DEVELOPMENT OF A MACHINERY AND NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT MODEL
FOR MANURB TRANSPORT.
By

Takako Inagaki

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Agricultural Engineering Department

1998

ABSTRACT
DEVELOPMENT OF A MACHINERY AND NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT
MODEL FOR MANURE TRANSPORT.

By

Takako Inagaki

A machinery and nutrient management model was developed to evaluate manure
machinery ownership and operating costs, and nutrient use for one- or two-year crop
sequences. With the model, hauling requirements and costs for a range of tractor-and
truck-drawn Spreaders and pipeline systems were compared on representative 150- and
600-cow dairy farms. Corn silage/com grain, wheat grain/ corn grain, sugar beet/com
grain and alfalfa hay/alfalfa hay sequences were compared to analyze the net cost of
manure machinery and providing crop nutrients. A com silage/com grain sequence with
P-based manure application over two years provided the highest net nutrient value and an
alfalfa hay/alfalfa hay sequence had the highest net cost. Nutrient requirements for wheat
grain/com grain and sugar beet/corn sequences better reflected manure nutrient
availability resulting in efficient use of applied nutrients. The truck-drawn or box
spreader system was the lowest cost at 4.8 km for the ISO-cow farm. Irrigation was the
lowest cost system on the 600-cow farm when the distance was less than 2 km. The

nurse truck system was the lowest cost when the distance was greater than 4.8 km.

ACKNOWLAGEMENTS

I would like to my gratitude and appreciation to Dr. Timothy M. Harrigan for his
guidance throughout the study and the graduate program as my major professor. I also
grateful to my graduate committee members, Dr. Lee W. Jacobs, Department of Crop and
Soil Science, Dr. Gary Schwab, Department of Agricultural Economics and Dr. Robert
Von Berth, Department of Agricultural Engineering for their patience and suggestions. I
also thank Dr. Al Rotz for advises and Dr. Larry Sigerlind for his guidance and
suggestion for computer programming for his suggestion and guidance of nutrient
management.

I’d like to thank my parents, Ikuo and Yoko Inagaki for their support,
understanding and encouragement. I’d also like to gratefully thank Heiko Mehldau for

his support and encouragement.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ ix
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Objectives ............................................................................................................ 4
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................ 5
2.1 Regulatory background ........................................................................................ 5
2.2 Manure use .......................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Manure production .............................................................................................. 6
2.4 Storage options .................................................................................................... 7
2.5 Manure nutrient ................................................................................................... 8
2.6 Nutrient loss ........................................................................................................ 8
2.7 Manure application methods .............................................................................. 10
2.7.1 Manure spreader systems ....................................................................... 10
2.7.2 Irrigation and drag hose systems ............................................................ 11
2.8 Manure transportation ........................................................................................ 12
2.9 Crop nutrient requirement .................................................................................. 12
2.10 Nutrient balance models .................................................................................... 13
2.11 Economics of manure management .................................................................... 16
Chapter 3
MODEL DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................... 18
3.1 Development of the hauling rate model .............................................................. 18
3.1.1 Machine cycle time ................................................................................ 18
3.1.2 Hauling Rate .......................................................................................... 20
3.2 Development Of the Machinery Cost Model ....................................................... 20
3.2.1 Depreciation ........................................................................................... 20
3.2.2 Interest ................................................................................................... 22
3.2.3 Insurance and Housing .......................................................................... 22
3.2.4 Repair and Manintenace Costs ............................................................... 22
3.2.5 Fuel and Lubrication Costs ..................................................................... 23
3.2.6 Labor ..................................................................................................... 23
3.3 Development of the Nutrient Management Model .............................................. 23

iv

3.3.1 Manure production ................................................................................. 24

3.3.2 Manure Nutrient Content ........................................................................ 24
3.3.3 Crop nutrient requirements ..................................................................... 27
3.3.4 Residual and Purchased nutrients ........................................................... 28
3.4 Program structure .............................................................................................. 28
3.4.1 Input ...................................................................................................... 29
3.4.2 Edit ....................................................................................................... 29
3.4.3 Files ....................................................................................................... 33
3.4.4 Calculation ............................................................................................. 33
3.4.5 Output .................................................................................................... 35
Chapter 4
PROCEDURE ............................................................................................................... 37
4.1 Herd Infromation ............................................................................................... 37
4.2 Machinery selection ........................................................................................... 38
4.3 Machinery parameters ........................................................................................ 42
4.4 Economic parameters ......................................................................................... 44
4.5 Crop information ............................................................................................... 45
Chapter 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................... . ............................. 46
5.1 Comparison of Manure Hauling Cost and Resource Use .................................... 46
5.1.1 Manure hauling rate ........................................................ .. ...................... 46
5.1.2 Machinery Ownership Costs .................................................................. 53
5.1.3 Repair and Meintenance Costs ............................................................... 53
5.1.4 Fuel use ........................................................................... . ...................... 57
5.1.5 Labor ..................................................................................................... 59
5.2 Effect of Crop Sequence on nutrient recovery and use ....................................... 61
5.2.1 Corn silage lcorn grain sequence ............................................................ 61
5.2.2 Wheat grain/com grain sequence ............................................................ 65
5.2.3 Sugar beets/ corn grain sequence ............................................................ 68
5.2.4 Alfalfa! alfalfa sequence ......................................................................... 71
5.3 Net costs ............................................................................................................ 73
Chapter 6
CONCLUSIONS ......................................................... ‘ .................................................. 81
APPENDD( ................................................................................................................... 87

Table 2.1

Table 3.1

Table 3.2

Table 3.3

Table 3.4

Table 3.5

Table 3.6

Table 3.7

Table 4.1

Table 4.2

Table 4.3

Table 4.4

Table 4.5

Table 4.6

LIST OF TABLES

Comparison of manure characteristics and production by

data sourse ............................................................................................... 7
Manure hauling and transport options. ................................................... 19
Remaining value coefficients for equipment. ......................................... 21
Bedding requirements for dairy cows. ................................................... 24
Percentage of organic nitrogen mineralized in the first crop

year. ..................................................................................................... 25
Ammonium nitrogen retention factors by application

method and days to incorporation. . ........................................................ 26
Crop yield goals and nutrient removal. .................................................. 27
List of input information and parameters. .............................................. 30

Manure production, equipment size and price for tank
spreader, V-tank spreader and box spreader systems for a
representative 150 dairy cow operation. ................................................. 39

Manure production, equipment size and price for the
tractor-drawn tank spreader, truck-drawn tank spreader, and
nurse truck and tank spreader combination systems for a
representative 600 dairy cow operation. ................................................. 4O

Manure production, equipment size and price for drag hose
system for a representative 600 dairy cow operation ............................... 41

Manure production, equipment size and price for irrigation

system for a representative 600 dairy cow operation. . ............................ 41
Representative of truck and tractor travel speeds. .................................. 42
Representative time of and material flow rates. . .................................... 43

vi

Table 4.7

Table 4.8

Table 5.1

Table 5.2

Table 5.3

Table 5.4

Table 5.5

Table 5.6

Table 5.7

Table 5.8

Table 5.9

Table 5.10

Table 5.11

Table 5.12

Table 5.13

Machinery parameters ............................................................................ 44

Economic parameters. . .......................................................................... 44

Comparison of hauling rates over a range of transport
distance. ................................................................................................ 52

Comparison of an ownership and repair and maintenance
costs for a ISO—cow operation at 1, 4.8, 8 and 10 km (1, 3, 5
and 10 mile) of hauling distance. ........................................................... 55

Comparison of an ownership costs and repair and
maintenance costs for a 600-cow Operation at l, 4.8, 8 and
10 km (1, 3, 5 and 10 mile)of hauling distance. ...................................... 56

Comparison of ownership and repair and maintenance costs
for 600-cow operation at l and 4.8km (l and 3 miles) of
hauling distance. .................................................................................... 57

Comparison of fuel use at 1, 4.8, 8 and 10 km (1, 3, 5 and
10 mile) of distance. . ............................................................................. 59

Comparison Of labor at 1, 4.8, 8 and 10 km (1, 3, 5 and 10
mile) of hauling distance. ....................................................................... 6O

Nitrogen budget for corn silage/com grain rotation using an
N-based manure application. . ............................................................... 62

Nutrient use for a corn silage/corn gain rotation using N-
based manure application. ..................................................................... 63

Nutrient use for a corn silage/com gain rotation using P-
based manure application. ..................................................................... 64

Nutrient use for a wheat grain/com gain rotation using N-
based manure application. ..................................................................... 66

Nutrient use for a wheat grain/com gain rotation using P-
based manure application ....................................................................... 67

Nutrient use for a sugar beet/com gain rotation using N-
based manure application. ..................................................................... 69

Nutrient use for sugar beet/com gain rotation using P-based
manure application ................................................................................. 7O

vii

Table 5.14 Nutrient use for alfalfa hay/alfalfa hay rotation using P-
based manure application. ..................................................................... 72

Table 5.15 Net cost (machinery cost minus value of manure nutrient
used) for 150- and 600-cow operations based on nitrogen
use at l, 4.8 and 8 km (1, 3 and 5 miles) hauling distance. . .................... 75

Table 5.16 Net cost (machinery cost minus value of manure nutrient
used) for 150- and 600-cow operations with phosphorus
balance at l, 4.8 and 8 km (1, 3 and 5 miles) hauling
distance. ................................................................................................. 76

Table 5.17 Value of manure nutrients used, commercial nutrients
purchased and residual nutrient value when manure was
applied for nitrogen use in year one of a two-year rotation. ................... 78

Table 5.18 Value of manure nutrients used, commercial nutrients
purchased and residual nutrient value when manure was
applied for a phosphorus balance with two-year rotation ........................ 79

Table 5.19 Net of machinery, commercial fertilizer, and residual
nutrients minus the value of manure nutrients used for 150-
and 600-cow operations with l, 4.8 and 8 km (1, 3 and 5
miles) hauling distance. . ....................................................................... 80

viii

Figure 2.1
Figure 3.1

Figure 3.2

Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.4
Figure 3.5

Figure 5.1

Figure 5.2

Figure 5.3

Figure 5.4

Figure A.l

Figure A.2

Figure A.3

Figure A.4

LIST OF FIGURES

Nitrogen transformation in the accounting procedure ......... - .................... 1 5
Model structure, main frame .................................................................. 28
Input sub-module structure ..................................................................... 31
Edit sub-module structure ...................................................................... 32
Calculation sub-module structure ....................... . .................................... 3 4
Output sub-module structure .......... . ........................................................ 3 6

Comparison of hauling rates (DM kg/hr and DM lb/hr) of a
2000-gallon V-tank spreader, a 250—bu box spreader and a
3500-gallon tank spreader systems for a ISO-cow operation. .................. 47

Comparison of actual hauling rates of a 2000-gallon V-
tank spreader, a 250-bu box spreader and a 3500-gallon
tank spreader systems for a ISO—cow operation. ...................................... 48

Comparison of hauling rates (DM kg/hr and DM lb/hr) for
2-3,500 gallon truck-drawn spreader tanks and 3-Operator
nurse-spreader combination for a GOO-cow operation .............................. 50

Comparison of actual hauling rates for 2-3,500 gallon
truck-drawn spreader tank system, and 3-operator nurse-
spreader combination system for a 600-cow Operation ............................ 51

Hauling cycle of series operation ............................................................ 87

Spreader tank and equal size nurse tank with a operator
system .................................................................................................... 88

Hauling cycle of spreader tank and double capacity of
nurse truck operation with one operator. ............................................... 89

Hauling cycle of spreader tank and equal size of two nurse
truck operation with two Operators. ....................................................... .90

ix

Figure A.5

Figure A.6

Figure A.7

Hauling cycle of a spreader tank and double capacity of
two nurse trucks operation with 3 operators ............................................ 91

Hauling cycle of a spreader tank and equal tank capacity of
two nurse trucks operation with three Operators. ..................................... 92

Hauling cycle of a spreader tank and double capacity of
two nurse truck 3 operation with three operators. .................................... 93

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Agricultural production has greatly increased over the past 40 years due to an
increase in irrigation, more land under cultivation, increased use of fertilizer and
pesticides, and improved crop varieties. The number of farms decreased from 2,212,960
in 1987 to 2,063,010 in 1996, but the average acreage increased from 451 to 469 acres
(USDA, 1997). In the past 10 years, the US. hog and pig inventory has climbed about 18
percent while the number of operations has decreased by 72 percent. Cattle feedlots also
have dropped in number while becoming much larger, leading to a greater concentration
of animals at each location. There are about 150,000 dairy operations throughout the
country, down from over 250,000 in just 10 years (Glover, 1996).

This increasing concentration of animals can impact water and air quality.
Untimely applications of manure can cause surface and ground water contamination. The
Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 required uniform air quality standards and emission
controls for livestock facilities, and amendments to the act firrther stiffened the criteria
for agricultural producers (Glover, 1996). The CAA has had more attention recently due
to an increase in odor-related nuisance suits filed by nearby property owners and activist
groups, however, it does not specifically refer to Odors but to air quality standards

(Glover, 1996).

2
Runoff of agricultural waste can cause health and environmental problems.

Excess nutrients stimulate excessive growth of aquatic vegetation and cause a reduction
of animal and plant populations along with odor and appearance problems. Nutrients also
can impair groundwater quality. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported
that confined animal feedlot runoff contributes to 7 percent of lake and 13 percent of
river impairment of designated uses (Letson and Gollehon, 1996).

Federal, state and local regulations restrict livestock Operations and field manure
applications. The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977 directly affects large livestock
operations by designating large operations - 1,000 animal unit (AU) or greater, or 300
animal units that discharge directly into surface water as point-source polluters - subject
to regulation under EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System
(NPDES) (Westenbarger and Letson 1995). The Coastal Zones Act Reauthorization
Amendments (CZARA) of 1990 was the first federal program to require specific
measures to address nonpoint source pollution from agricultural erosion and runofi‘
(Glover 1996, Letson and Gollehon 1996).

For livestock producers, manure can be a useful resource rather than a pollution
source. Manure is a source of nutrients and organic matter. Timely use of manure is a
great nutrient management strategy and reduces commercial fertilizer use. Livestock
producers must apply manure according to animal population and soil nutrient
availability. In some cases, they may either not have enough cropland to utilize the
manure that they produce or they may not be able to apply manure on their cropland due

to high nutrient levels.

3
Transportation of manure is an essential component of manure management.

Transportation method varies depending on the distance from storage, treatment facilities,
and method of usage. To utilize manure effectively and safely, nutrient management,
crop rotation and manure uniformity are important. Even though the costs of facilities
and equipment increase with long-term storage, it allows for better management of
manure.

Livestock producers or farm managers need accurate information about
application methods to select the best management system. Several nutrient management
models have been developed. One example is the Michigan State University Nutrient
Management (MSUNM) program. This computer program tracks the cropping history,
soil test analysis information, fertilizer lime and pesticide applications, and tillage
planting and harvesting information (MacKellar et a], 1996). Another model is the
Vermont Manure Nutrient Manager developed to help formulate nutrient management
plans for dairy or other livestock farms by recommending manure application rates and
fertilizer needs (Jokela et a1, 1995). At Pennsylvania State University, the Farm Nutrient
Management Planning worksheet was developed to provide a nutrient management plan
for manure and fertilizer (Bohn et al., 1997). The Manure Application Planner (MAP)
was developed to measure manure application methods and rate, manure nutrient credits,
and commercial fertilizer nutrient value (University of Minnesota, 1997).

Several farm machinery selection models have been developed. Rotz et a1 (1983)
developed an algorithm to select machinery. It includes, (1) type of crop and the
cropping sequence, (2) the area to be farmed, (3) the predominant soil type of the farm,

(4) geographic location and weather conditions, (5) implements and machines that

4
already exist on the farm, (6) labor availability for peak season demands and (7) field

Operations to be done through custom hire. Siemens et a1 (1990) developed a similar
machinery selection and management program. It was designed to estimate the field
operations for different machinery sets and to compute the total machinery related costs.
Both models provide a least cost machinery set, but neither is designed to select manure
handling equipment.

Cost and machinery capacity information is needed to compare alternative manure
application methods. There is a need for a general model to compare hauling rates and
nutrient use for spreader tank and other common manure hauling systems.

1.1 Objectives

The objectives of this work were to:

1. Develop a framework to evaluate costs and labor requirements for manure

transportation and nutrient use.

2. Implement this framework in a user friendly computer program.

3. Use this program to draw general conclusions regarding manure transportation

and nutrient use for selected transport systems and crop sequences on 150-

and GOO-cow dairy farms.

Chapter 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Regulatory background

Federal, state and local regulations restrict livestock operations and field manure
applications. Water pollution from nonpoint sources, including agriculture, is subject to
section 319 of the CWA (USDA, 1996). Agricultural nonpoint-source pollution includes
nutrients, sediment, animal wastes, salts, and pesticides (USEPA, 1997). Potential
pollutants in animal waste are oxygen-demanding substances, nutrients, organic solids,
salts, bacteria, viruses and other microorganisms, and sediment (U SEPA, 1997). Since
nonpoint source pollution is diverse and site-specific, states have been given primary
responsibility to control nonpoint source pollution. State and local governments mostly
emphasize voluntary actions in controlling nonpoint source pollution (USDA, 1996).
The CZARA requires that each state with an approved coastal zone management program
submit to EPA and to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration a program
to “implement management measures for nonpoint source pollution to restore and protect
coastal waters” (USDA, 1996). States can first try voluntary incentive mechanisms, but
must be able to enforce management measures if voluntary approaches fail (USDA,
1996). The Michigan Agriculture Commission (1992) has adopted practices relevant to

the Michigan Right to Farm Act (PA. 93, 1981) that specifically addresses soil fertility,

6
fertilizer recommendations, manure analysis, manure nutrient loading, application

method and time of application (Michigan Agricultural Commission, 1992).
2.2 Manure use

Land application of manure as a fertilizer for crop production is a traditional
waste utilization technique (USDA, 1992). Alternative uses are biogas generation, feed
products, compost and biomas protection (Hauck, 1995; MacCaskey, 1995; USDA,
1992). Application of manure nutrients to cropland and pasture typically equals about

one-sixth of that supplied by commercial fertilizer (National Research Council, 1993).
2.3 Manure production

Manure production varies due to animal type, diet, age, productivity and
management. Data on livestock manure production and its characteristics are available to
assist in the planning, design and operation of manure collection, storage, pretreatment
and utilization systems. (ASAE, 1997c). The Midwest Plant Service (MWPS) has
provided raw manure production information based on ASAE data (MWPS, 1985). A
comparison of manure characteristics is listed in Table 2.1. Dilution by added bedding
and additional water are not included (Jones and Sutton, 1994). Estimates have been
developed by several state universities based on local conditions, experiences and

opinions (Jones and Sutton, 1994).

7
Table 2.1 Comparison of manure characteristics and production by data source.

 

Manure composition

 

 

 

 

SI Units English Units
Amma' type m3?“ N P205 K20 N P205 K20
[%] [kg/IOOOL] [lb/1000gal]
MWPS
Dairy Cows 12.7 4.9 2.0 4.0 41 17 33
Beef cows 11.6 5.4 4.0 4.7 45 33 39
Swine 9.2 7.2 5.4 4.3 60 45 36
Broilers 25.2 16.0 8.2 6.0 133 68 50
Turkeys 25.2 -- -- -- -- -- -—-
ASAE
Dairy Cows 14.0 5.2 2.5 4.1 43 21 34
Beef cows 14.7 5.8 3.6 4.4 48 30 37
Swine 13.1 6.1 4.8 4.1 51 40 34
Broilers 25.9 13.0 8.0 5.8 108 67 48
Turkeys 25.5 13.2 1 1.3 6.2 1 10 94 52
USDA
Dairy Cows 12.5 5.5 1.9 3.8 46 16 32
Beef cows 11.5 5.2 4.2 4.9 43 35 41
Swine 10.0 6.7 5.9 4.2 56 49 35
Broilers 25.0 13.9 9.8 7.1 116 82 59
Turkeys 25.0 17.0 14.8 7.8 142 123 65

 

Source: ASAE, 1997c; MWPS, 1995; USDA, 1992

2.4 Storage options

Manure can be removed from barns by flushing, scrapping, gravity gutters, or
pumping and can then be held in storage. Manure production and nutrient availability
Vary depending on the animal type and operating system. Storage selection depends on
the type of manure, Operation and local regulations.

Manure can be hauled and spread daily with a short-terrn storage system or stored

long-term and spread at a scheduled time. Long-term storage requires more facilities and

8
equipment (Harrigan et al., 1996), but it is easier to manage spreading time and

uniformity of nutrient content (Harrigan. 1997).
2.5 Manure nutrient

Manure contains major nutrients for crop growth such as nitrogen, phosphorus
and potassium. Nitrogen and phosphorus are the most important for nutrient management
since they most directly impact water quality. The nutrient value of manure varies
depending on animal type, storage, application method, weather, and timing of
application. Manure nutrient levels can vary considerably depending upon the
composition of the diet fed to animals, method and length of storage, and the amount of
water, bedding or feed spillage in the manure (Sutton, 1994).

Animal waste plans have frequently been based on nitrogen. However, a number
of environmental issues such as eutrophication of surface waters by phosphorus in runoff,
the fate of trace elements, antibiotics, pesticides and growth hormones in wastes, and the
effects of pathogens in wastes on human and animal health have forced a reevaluation of
nitrogen-based management of animal wastes (Sims and Wolf, 1994). When manure is
applied to meet the nitrogen requirement of a crop, there is ofien an over-application of
phosphorus and potassium which build up in the soil (Sutton, 1994). Thus, producers
have to choose either applying a high rate of manure and rotating the fields or applying

lower rates and applying additional nitrogen. (Sutton, 1994)
2.6 Nutrient loss

A loss of nutrients in manure occurs during collection, storage, treatment and
application. Nitrogen is lost due to volatilization and denitrification. Nitrogen losses

during handling and storage range from 15 to 60 percent for solid manure and 10 to 80

9
percent for liquid manure depending on the system (MWPS, 1985). Phosphorus and

potassium losses are lower. About 20 to 40 percent of the phosphorus and 30 to 50
percent of potassium can be lost by runoff and leaching from open lots, but, these
nutrients can ofien be recovered by proper runoff control (MWPS, 1985).

Nutrient values vary depending upon the management system and type of manure.
For instance, dairy manure stored in an open lot in a cool, humid region retains 70 to 85
percent of the nitrogen whereas manure treated in an anaerobic lagoon, after being diluted
more than 50 percent, retains only 20 to 35 percent of the nitrogen (USDA, 1992).
Nitrogen loss during land application is typically 10 to 35 percent when broadcast on the
surface, 1 to 5 percent when broadcast with immediate cultivation, 0 to 2 percent when
injected and 15 to 35 percent when irrigated (MWPS, 1985). These losses vary with
climate and soil type.

Nitrogen is available in the soil in organic and inorganic forms. The inorganic
forms are soluble and available for plant uptake. Organic nitrogen must be in a
mineralized form before plants can use it as a nutrient. Mineralization rates vary
depending on climate, soil type, manure type, manure handling method and so on. In
general, the fresher the waste material, the higher the mineralization rate (Safley, 1994).
The range of mineralization rate in the first cropping season is from 25 to 50 percent
(MWPS, 1985). During the second, the third, and the fourth cropping seasons after the
first manure application, organic nitrogen is released at a rate of 50, 25, 12.5 percent of

the organic nitrogen released in the first cropping season (MWPS, 1985).

10
2.7 Manure application methods

Traditional disposal methods collect and store waste material in large lagoons or
separation basins. After solids have been broken down by fermentation, farmers stir the
slurry and apply it to fields in much the same way as commercial fertilizer (Westenbarger
and Letson, 1995).

Field application of manure can be done by irrigation, injection, or surface
spreading. The selection of application method changes depending on the consistency of
manure. Manure is classified according to its consistency as solid, semi-solid, slurry and
liquid. Solid manure contains 20 percent or more total solids. Semi-solid manure ranges
from about 10 to 22 percent of total solid content. Slurry is 5 to 15 percent total solid
contents and liquid manure is less than 5 percent total solid content (ASAE, l997e;
MWPS, 1985; USDA, 1992).

2.7.1 Manure spreader systems

A manure spreader is a machine to haul, unload and distribute manure and may be
PTO or hydraulically driven (ASAE, 1997d). There are different types of Spreaders and
these are selected based on the consistency of the manure. Spreaders can be tractor-
drawn or truck-mounted.

A box type spreader is used for solid or semi-solid manure (ASAE, 1997d;
MWPS, 1985: USDA, 1992). This type of spreader has a horizontal floor, vertical side
Walls and a vertical or slanted front or rear wall. Manure is conveyed or pushed to the

Open end where a device, usually a beater, distributes or spreads the material being
hauled (ASAE, l997d). A V-tank (“V” bottom) spreader is used for semi-solid and

Slurry manure (ASAE, 1997d). It has an open or covered rectangular tank with a V-

11
shaped bottom. A shaft runs the length of the tank at the bottom of the “V” and, with its

attachments, agitates and moves the manure to a second device which spreads the manure
on the soil surface (ASAE, 1997d).

A tank spreader is used to apply slurry manure. A tank spreader is a completely
enclosed horizontal or modified cylinder (ASAE, 1997d). Manure from tank spreaders
is typically unloaded under pressure. Manure may be surface applied or injected below
the soil surface (Harrigan, 1997). Since these hauling systems require heavy equipment,
they can be a source of soil compaction. For hauling over long distances, a nurse truck
with a spreader tank combination can increase travel speed and transport efficiency.

2.7.2 Irrigation and drag hose systems

Irrigation and drag hose systems are Often used for manure with a solids content
below 5 percent. An irrigation system on a large farm can reduce machinery, fuel and
labor costs (Borton et al., 1995). Potential problems of irrigation systems are: (1) odor,
(2) uneven nutrients distribution, and (3) runoff. The other disadvantage of irrigation is a
higher nutrient loss with up to 35 percent of the nitrogen during application (MWPS,
1985).

A drag hose system is also a faster application method compared to hauling liquid
manure. The system transports manure through a pipeline and injects manure without

using spreaders. This system consists of a storage agitator, a manure pump, a main line
from the pump to the field, a drag line to connect the main line, an injection implement
and tractors (PAMI, 1997). Major advantages of drag hose systems are reduced nutrient
loss and better odor control than with an irrigation system. Since a drag hose system

inj ects manure into the soil, nitrogen loss is about 2 percent or less (MWPS, 1985; PAMI,

12
1997). A disadvantage of a drag hose system is the high equipment cost. The cost of

equipment may be too high for an individual producer, depending upon the size of the
Operation and the amount of manure (PAMI, 1997).

Irrigation and drag hose systems transport manure from storage to field through
pipeline using pumps. Manure can be pumped up to 2 miles (3.2 km) in normal
conditions. More pumps are needed to increase pressure head when the field is far fi'om
the storage and the pipe system becomes longer. Pressure requirements for irrigation
varies in regard to the type of irrigation and equipment. Generally, big gun sprinklers
require a nozzle pressure of 414 to 827 kPa (60 to 120 psi) (Cuenca, 1989), and injection

systems require lower pressure, around 69 kPa (10 psi) (Goodrich, 1994; PAMI, 1997)

2.8 Manure transportation

Travel distance can greatly influence labor requirements and costs and it is ofien
the most variable factor that effects the manure removal rate (Welty et al., 1986). Many
farmers use truck-drawn spreader tanks for rapid and efficient over-the-road transport
(Harrigan, 1997). A nurse tank for transport and a spreader tank for application increased
the spreading rate and reduced the cost of transportation (Welty et al., 1986; Borton, et
al., 1995). The hauling rate of a nurse tank and spreader tank system increased when
labor was available to allow parallel Operation of the nurse tank with spreaders (Harrigan,
I 997).

2.9 Crop nutrient requirement

Macronutrients are generally required in large amounts for plant growth.
Macronutrients include nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium and sulfur.

IVIicronutrients are required in small amounts but are necessary for plant growth. These

13
include iron, chlorine, copper, manganese, zinc, molybdenum and boron. Crop nutrient

requirements are estimated in two ways: (1) by crop nutrient removal, and (2) by
fertilizer recommendation. Crop nutrient removal is simply the removal of the nutrient
from the field by crop growth and harvest. Fertilizer recommendations are based on soil
type and soil fertility test, type of crop grown and expected yield. Michigan State
University Extension bulletin ESSO-A provides fertilizer recommendation for field crops
in Michigan (Christensen et a1, 1992).

2.10 Nutrient balance models

Nutrient management is the balancing of environmental goals and nutrient
demands for crop production. Manure is a good nutrient source for crop growth;
however, the nutrient content varies depending on the type of manure and treatment
procedures. Klausner (1995) pointed out key aspects of a successful nutrient management
plan: (1) the movement and quantity of nutrients entering, leaving, and remaining on the
farm needs to be measured, (2) a nutrient application schedule should be maintained to
ensure that the rate and timing of manure and fertilizer applications meet the crop
requirement, (3) a crop selection and rotational sequence needs to be established in order
to ensure efficient nutrient recycling. Figure 2.1 shows the structure of a nitrogen budget.
There are ten points to consider when developing a nitrogen budget plan: (1) estimate
nutrients in the excreted manure, (2) add nutrients in waste water, feed and bedding, (3)
Silbtract nutrients lost during storage, (4) determine the plant nutrients available in the
manure, (5) determine the nutrients required by the crop and soil to produce the yield
goal, (6) compute increased nitrogen to compensate for application losses, (7) select

nlltr'ients for the calculation of manure application rate, (8) compute the acres of cropland

14
that manure will be applied on, (9) determine the application rate of manure, (10) any

other further considerations such as the amount of other nutrients in manure with the
nitrogen application rate.

. Nutrient management and nutrient value models have been widely developed.
Thompson et a1 (1997) summarized several computer programs for manure nutrient
application and identified basic program components. Basic program requirements were:
( 1) manure nutrient values were known or default values used, (2) crop nutrient
requirements were entered or calculated by soil test or crop removal data, (3) credit was
provided for previous manure applications and/or legume crops, (4) available nutrients
were estimated as 40 to 100 percent of applied nutrients, (5) an assessment of retained
nutrient value, (6) nutrient balance, (7) rate of manure was calculated, and (8) the rate for

commercial fertilizer was calculated.

a . ”DALAJAH

Volatilization NH,

Denitn'fication N;

 

 

Nutrient
available for crop

production

 

i

 

 

Step 1
Manure
generated

 

i

Step 2
Waste water and
feed added

 

i

 

K
K

 

Step 3
Nutrients (N)
loss in storage or
treatment

 

i

 

 

Step 4
Mineralization of
manure to plant
available
nutrients

 

 

l

15

 

 

Nutrient (N)

needed for crop

production

 

 

{

i

V

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Step 5 Step S-a
Cooperative Plant harvest
State Extension Step 5.1)
Service Denitrification
Recommendation Steps-c
Leaching loss
Step S-d
Additions from
other sources
* I
Step 6
Nutrients (N)
compensated
from application
losses total j
nutrient required
to produce crop

 

 

 

 

+

 

 

Step 7
Controlling
nutrient selection

 

 

v

 

 

Step 8
Acres required to
utilize nutrients
(N)

(Step 5/Step 6)

 

0

Step 9
Determine
application rate

 

i

 

 

Step 10
Further
considerations

+

 

 

N J
N0,—> N2 j

N03 N

Volatilization N H 3

Recommendation to land manager or
make adjustments and go through the
accounting procedure again

I=igur‘e 2.1 Nitrogen transformation in the accounting procedure (USDA, 1992)

16
Livestock producers or farm managers need reliable information to determine

application rates which are environmentally safe and economical. Michigan State
University Nutrient Management (MSUMN) is a computer program designed to track
cropping history, soil test analysis information, fertilizer, lime and pesticide applications,
and tillage, planting and harvesting information. It also manages manure analysis
information (MacKellar et a1, 1996). The Vermont Manure Nutrient Manager was
created to help develop nutrient management plans for dairy or other livestock farms by
recommending manure application rates and additional fertilizer needs (Jokela et a1,
1 995). The Farm Nutrient Management Planning worksheet developed at Pennsylvania
State University aids in the development of nutrient management plans for manure and
commercial fertilizer (Bohn et a1, 1997). The Manure Application Planner (MAP) was
developed at the University of Minnesota. It was made for the assessment of manure
application methods and rate, manure nutrient credits and commercial fertilizers

(University of Minnesota, 1997).
2-1 1 Economics of manure management

The economics of manure management includes machinery costs, labor costs,
nutrient values, and manure nutrient credit. Machinery costs and labor requirements can
110t be separated from crop and manure nutrient information since quantity and quality of
manure application relates to crop nutrient requirements. Bosch and Napit (1992)
developed a model to estimate the costs of providing the services needed to use litter for
fertilizer and the economic value of litter as a fertilizer. This model estimates the nutrient

transfer cost of litter from surplus to deficit counties. Borton et al (1995) compared

manure handling operations and found that on a small farm, machinery costs for a slurry

17
system were up to 17 percent higher than for a semi-solid system; fuel costs were about

1 5 percent higher. Storage costs were low since semi-solid manure was not stored for
long periods.

Transport distance has a major effect on manure handling costs. The handling
costs increased between 15 to 30 percent from 1 km (0.6 mile) to 5 km (3.1miles) of
transport distance (Borton et a1, 1995). Transport distance also affects the cost of
irrigation. At a 1 km (0.6 mile) transport distance, manure irrigation reduced hauling
costs about 30 percent compared to an application with slurry spreaders. Nevertheless,
the total cost of irrigation was similar to that of using a nurse tank at a 5 km (3.1 mile)

transport distance (Borton et al, 1995).

Chapter 3

MODEL DEVELOPMENT

The proposed manure machinery and nutrient management model has been
designed to estimate costs and labor requirements for manure transportation and nutrient
use. The model consists of four parts: the hauling rate model, machinery cost model,
manure production model and the crop nutrient model.

3-1 Development of the hauling rate model

Machinery performance is evaluated based on the rate of transport and cost of use.
A hauling rate and hauling hours were used to evaluate and compare various hauling
Operations.

3.1.] Machine cycle time

Cycle time is the time needed to complete a series of machine operations.
Typically, a system of machines is used rather than a single machine. Thus, the field
Capacity of any single machine may be limited by the rate of other operations in the
Sy Stem (Hunt, 1995). An accurate estimate of cycle time for manure hauling operation is
needed to create a valid model that will provide useful comparisons of alternative hauling
SD’Stems (Harrigan, 1997).

In this model, the cycle time of a series of Operations was calculated as the sum of

loading, maneuvering, traveling and unloading time (Appendix Al). There were three
hallling options using parallel machine operations. Firstly, one operator operated both a

nut’Se truck and spreader tank. Secondly, one operator used two nurse trucks to shuttle
l8

19
manure from storage to the field and a second operator ran a spreader tank in the field.

Finally, two operators used two nurse trucks to shuttle manure and an operator ran a
spreader tank. When one operator ran both nurse truck and spreader tank, the cycle time
was estimated by summing all time needed for the series of operations (Appendix A2,
A3). The cycle time for the spreader tank operation was calculated as the sum of
operation time, maneuvering, transfer, and spreading time (Appendix A4, A6). The cycle
time for the nurse truck operation was the sum of maneuvering time, loading time,
transfer and travelling time. The cycle time of the nurse trucks and spreader tank was
compared and the longer time was selected as representative of the operation. When two
or more operators were involved, the cycle time for the nurse trucks and spreader tank
were calculated separately. When one operator operated two nurse trucks, a cycle was
determined from when the first nurse truck was loaded at storage to when the second
truck was ready to be loaded at storage (Appendix A4, A5). When two operators each
ran a nurse tank, the nurse cycle time was estimated as half of the individual operation

tinie (Appendix A6, A7). The spreader tank volume was either equal to or one half of the

nurse tank volume.

Table 3.1 Manure hauling and transport options.

 

\

 

 

\ Hauling Options
\ Series Parallel Irrigation and drag hose
Tank spreader l-operator, l-nurse truck Irrigation
(Truck- or Tractor-drawn) and l-spreader tank
V-tank spreader 2-operators, 2-nurse truck Drag hose
(Truck- or Tractor-drawn) and l-spreader tank
Box spreader 3-operators, 2-nurse truck

(Truck- or Tractor-drawn) and l-spreader tank

 

20
3.1.2 Hauling Rate

Hauling rate was the volume of material moved per unit time. A theoretical
hauling rate for the spreader tank system was calculated as the spreader tank volume
divided by cycle time. Pumping rate for irrigation and drag hose systems was assumed to
be 1,890 liter per minutes (500 gallons per minute).

Field efficiency is the ratio of a machine under field conditions to a theoretical
maximum productivity (ASAE, l997b). An actual or effective capacity is often less than
a theoretical or potential capacity (Hunt, 1995). Harrigan (1997) proposed efficiency for
surface spreading of 0.85 to 0.95 and 0.75 to 0.85 for injection. The upper limit of the
range applies to well-maintained equipment and the lower limit to older or poorly
maintained equipment. Lower efficiencies for injection were used to account for
additional downtime for injector repair and to adjust for unloading rates lower than for
surface spreading.

3.2 Development of the Machinery Cost Model

Equipment costs were categorized as fixed and variable. Fixed costs were not
associated with the amount of use and variable costs varied with use (Hunt, 1995; ASAE,
1997a). Fixed costs included depreciation, interest, housing and insurance. Variable
costs included fuel, lubrication, labor, and repair and maintenance.

3-2- l Depreciation
Depreciation reflects a reduction in the value of an asset with use over time

(ASAE, 1997a). An average depreciation was estimated using a straight-line method.

Purchase Price — Remaning Value] (1)

Depriciation =£
Age

Where:

 

21

Purchase price and remaining value in US. dollars.

Age was the age of machine in years.

Cross and Perry (1996) developed a remaining value model for farm machinery

based on recent patterns of machinery depreciation. Remaining value was calculated as a

function of sales price, age, and hours of use. A general functional form with machine

specific coefficients was used to calculate a remaining value for a variety of farm

equipment including tractors, manure spreaders and other equipment. The remaining

value was calculated as:

RV = 100 x (CI - C2(Age)°'5 - C,(Ave.H0urS)°'5)2

Where:

Age was the age of machine in years.

Ave. Hours was the accumulated use of machinery in hours.

Cl, 23 were machinery specific coefficients shown in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 Remaining value coefficients for equipment.

 

Remaining value coefficients

 

Equipment type C1 C2 C3

Tractor

Small < 60 kW 0.9809 0.0934 0.0058
(<80 hp)

Medium 60 - 112 kW 0.9421 0.0997 0.0008

(80- 150 hp)

Large 112 kW < 0.9756 0.1187 0.0019
(150 hp <)

Spreader 0.9427 0.1 l 87 «-

 

Source: Cross and Perry 1996

(2)

-‘ -‘mu.‘~‘

22

3.2.2 Interest

A constant annual interest charge was determined by calculating the average
investment in the machine over its frrll life (Hunt, 1995). For this model, the average
interest over the life of each machine was estimated by taking an average of the sum of
the purchase and remaining value multiplied by the interest rate. The real interest rate
was used in this model. The default value of the rate was six present and the value is
variable.

3.2.3 Insurance and Housing

An annual charge for insurance was assumed to be from 0.25 to 0.50 percent of
the remaining value or 0.25 percent of the original price (Bowers, 1992; Hunt, 1995). A
charge for shelter is typically 1 to 2 percent of the remaining value or 0.5 to 1 percent of
the purchase price (Bowers, 1992; Hunt, 1995). A combined rate for insurance and
housing was estimated as 1 percent of the purchase price.

32.4 Repair and Maintenance Costs

Repair and maintenance is necessary to keep machines running effectively.

Accumulated repair and maintenance costs were determined by the relationships outlined

by ASAE(1997b).

h (nrz)
Cm = (M1)P(m) (3)

Where:

C", is accumulated repair and maintenance costs, dollars
RF 1 and RF 2 are repair and maintenance factors.

P is machinery purchase price.

 

23
h is accumulated use of machine, hours.

An average annual repair and maintenance cost was determined by dividing accumulated
repair and maintenance cost by the economic life of the machine.
3.2.5 Fuel and Lubrication Costs
An average fuel consumption was estimated as a function of pto horsepower and
hours of use. Tractors consume approximately 0.22 liter of diesel fuel per pto kW-hour
(0.044 gallons of diesel fuel per pto horsepower-hour) and trucks consume approximately
0.086 liter of fuel per engine kW-hour (0.017 gallons of fuel per engine horsepower-
hour) for diesel engines (Bowers, 1992; ASAE, l997b). An average fuel cost was
estimated as a function of fuel use, hours and fuel price. Other lubrication costs,
including engine oil and filters, were estimated as 10 percent of the average fuel costs
(Bowers, 1992).
3.2.6 Labor
Labor costs were determined by the number of operators, hours of operation, and
a wage rate. The default wage rate was ten dollars and the rate is variable. For parallel
machine operations, one to three operators were chosen based on the operation. For
irrigation and drag hose systems, the typical number of operators was two but there could
be as many as deemed necessary.
3.3 Development of the Nutrient Management Model
Manure production was calculated based upon animal type and size. Manure
nutrient content was estimated according to animal type and application method. Manure
mltrients availability were compared with crop nutrient removal, nutrient losses, residual

nutrients and purchased nutrients. Nutrients calculations were based on either nitrogen

24
use or a phosphorus balance. The volume of manure was calculated based on the amount

of the nitrogen removed in the first year for nitrogen use based application. The volume
of manure was calculated based on the amount of the phosphorus removed in two years
of crop growth for a phosphorus balanced application.
3.3.1 Manure production

The amount of manure produced and the nutrient content of the manure varied by
animal type and size. Types of animals used were dairy cows, beef cows, swine, broilers
and turkeys. Total manure production was calculated as the sum of manure produced and

bedding used. The volume of manure production was calculated as the sum of manure

 

dry matter, bedding dry matter and dilution water. The amount of bedding material was
calculated based on the number and size of animals and the type of bedding used (Table
3.3). Dry matter content was 4 percent for liquid manure, 8 percent for slurry and 20

percent for solid manure.

Table 3.3 Bedding requirements for dairy cows.

 

 

 

Bedding required Density
Type of bedding 10%;? £22.] mgr/gm” [kg/m3] [lb/03]
Loose hay or straw 7.4 7.4 57 3.5
Chopped hay or straw 6.5 6.5 105 6.5
Shavings or saw dust 3.1 3.1 170 10.5
_Sand or lime stone" 1.5 1.5 _ 1540 95

 

Source: MWPS, 1985; " USDA, 1992

3.3.2 Manure Nutrient Content
Manure is a source of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and organic matter.

Nutrient content in manure can be affected by moisture, handling method, application

25

method, and days between spreading and incorporation. Nutrient losses occur while
collecting, treating, and applying manure. Nitrogen can be lost by volatilization, leaching
and denitrification. Nutrient losses can be estimated to assess the nutrient content
available for crop growth.

Nitrogen is present in the soil in two forms, organic and inorganic forms.
Mineralization rates vary depending on animal type and manure handling methods.
Organic nitrogen must be mineralized or converted into an inorganic form before it is
available for plant uptake. The rate of mineralization for organic nitrogen is mineralized
at a rate of about 25 to 50 percent of the organic nitrogen present in the manure to
estimate how much of this nitrogen will be available for the crop in the first crop year
(Table 3.4). The amount of available organic nitrogen was estimated by the amount of

organic nitrogen in the manure multiplied by a mineralization factor.

Table 3.4 Percentage of organic nitrogen mineralized in the frrst crop year.

 

 

Animal type Manure handling Mineralization factor

Dairy and beef cows Solid without bedding 0.35
Solid with bedding 0.25
Anaerobic liquid 0.3
Aerobic liquid 0.25

Swine Fresh 0.5
Anaerobic liquid 0.35
Aerobic liquid 0.3

Broilers and Turkeys Deep pit 0.45
Solid with litter 0.3
Solid without litter 0.35

 

Source: MWPS, 1985

5J1

unr u‘

26
The tinting of manure incorporation affects nitrogen loss. Table 3.5 shows the

potential amount of remaining ammonium nitrogen available depending on the soil
conditions and application methods (MacKellar et al, 1996). Available nitrogen for the
first crop year was calculated by adding the amount of available organic nitrogen,
adjusted ammonium nitrogen and nitrate. The amount of nitrogen available in the
second year was residual organic nitrogen available in the second year.

Nutrient losses for phosphorus and potassium were assumed minimal. Nutrient
losses in storage can be accounted for by using an actual nutrient value based on a
manure nutrient test.

The volume of manure applied, the land area needed and the available manure
nutrients were calculated based on the nitrogen or phosphorus removal of the crops.
Manure nutrient values were compared with crop nutrient removal. Manure was applied
to meet crop nitrogen or phosphorus requirements. Unused phosphorus and potassium
and organic nitrogen were allowed to remain in the soil as residual nutrients. Residual

could be used for crop growth in the subsequent years.

Table 3.5 Ammonium nitrogen retention factors by application method and days to

 

 

incorporation.
Application Method Percentage of nitrogen
retain value
Injection 100
Broadcast
Days to incorporate

0 - l 70
2 - 3 40
4 - 7 20

7 or more 10

 

Source MacKellar et a1 1996

 

3.3.3 Crop nutrient requirements

27

Crop nutrient requirements can be based on either crop nutrient removal or

fertilizer recommendation, type of crop grown and yield expected nutrient availability.

Nutrient removal is based on the nutrients a crop will remove from the soil during the

growing season. In contrast, fertilizer recommendations based on a soil fertility test

results to account for nutrient removal. In this model, nutrient requirements were based

on the nutrient removal. Default yield goals are typical for Michigan (MASS, 1997;

Christenson, 1997; Jones, 1997; Leep, 1997; Ward, 1997) and these values are variable

(Table 3.6).

Table 3.6 Crop yield goals and nutrient removal

 

 

 

 

 

81 Units English Units

Nutrient removal Nutrient removal
Crop Type may" Yield goal N P20, 100 Yield goal N P205 K20

\ [%] Units [kg/ha] Units [lb/ac]
Alfalfa, hay 82.5 13 t/ha 282 67 303 6 ton/acre 252 60 270
Alfalfa, wilted silage 32 34 t/ha 235 54 202 15 ton/acre 210 48 180
Barley, grain 90 5220 L/ha 59 26 17 60 bu/acre 53 23 15
Barley, grain & straw 90 5220 L/ha 74 29 75 60 bu/acre 66 26 67
Clover grass, hay 82.5 5 t/ha 230 73 219 5 ton/acre 205 65 195
Corn. grain 84.5 10440 L/ha 121 47 36 120 bu/acre 108 42 32
Corn, silage 30 45 t/ha 210 81 175 20 ton/acre 188 72 156
beans 82 2 cwt/ha 73 25 33 18 chre 65 22 29
Oats, grain 90 5220 L/ha 41 17 12 60 bu/acre 37 15 11
Oats, grain & straw 90 5220 Ma 71 24 140 60 bu/acre 63 21 125
Rye. grain 98.5 3220 L/ha 46 17 13 37 bu/acre 41 15 12
Rye,grain&srraw 91 3220 L/ha 61 24 48 37 bu/acre 54 21 43
Soybeans 82 5480 L/ha 170 39 63 40 bu/acre 152 35 56
Sugar beets, roots 35 43 t/ha 85 28 71 19 ton/acre 76 25 63
eat, grain 87 5220 Ma 81 41 26 6O bu/acre 72 37 23
Win & straw 90 5220 um 103 47 64 60 bu/acre 92 42 57

 

SOIuee: Christenson et al, 1992

28
3.3.4 Residual and Purchased nutrients

Residual nutrients were nutrients applied in excess of crop requirements. Residual
nutrients were calculated as the differences between the nutrients applied and crop
nutrient removal. Purchased nutrients were applied when nutrients from manure were not
adequate for crop removal. Purchased nutrients were calculated as nutrients required for
crop growth minus nutrients available from the manure.
3.4 Program structure
The program consists of six main modules (Figure 3.1). Each module was F1
independent. Data files were created in the input module and the information was stored.
The edit module allowed the changing of existing information. The output module
reported input parameters by displaying on a monitor, printing or saving to a file. All

these modules were listed in the main menu.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Main
Menu
In ut . Load File Delete
p Edit File Save File Run Report

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l:igure 3.1 Model structure, main frame

29
3.4.1 Input

The input module creates data files and stores farm operation information. This
module is accessible from the main menu. The structure of this module is shown in
Figure 3.2. From the input menu, the user can access the four sub modules: animal and
crop information, machinery information, storage and parameters.

Parameters are coefficients used for calculations including a list of repair and
maintenance coefficients, fuel consumption, travel speed, loading and unloading time,
maneuvering time, and price coefficients. These parameters need not be changed;
however, the user can review these parameters and change them, if necessary.

3.4.2 Edit

The edit module is used to make minor changes in farm data. This module has a
parallel structure so the user can reach this screen directly from two levels of the edit
menu (Figure 3.3). The first level indicates information -- machinery, storage or
Parameters -- that can be changed. The second level allows accessing each screen

directly.

30
Table 3.7 List of input information and parameters.

 

 

Default value Other options Input type
Manure and crop information
Type of bedding None Listed in Table 3.3 listed
Animal type Dairy cow Beef cow, swine, Listed items
broiler, turkey
Number of animals -- -- Integer
Animal average weight 640 kg (1,400 lb) -- Integer
Dry matter produced -- Calculated, variable.
Dry matter content 6 % -- Variable
Manure produced --- Calculated, variable
Manure handling method -- Listed in Table 3.4 listed
Application method -- Injection, irrigation Listed
Days to incorporate ..- Listed in Table 3.5 Listed
Manure Composition -- -- Calculated, variable
Crop information
Crop sequences Alfalfa hay Listed in Table 3.6 Listed
Yield goal 13 We (6 ton/ac) Listed in Table 3.6 Listed, variable
Machinery information
Hauling method --- Listed in Table3.1 Listed
Machinery size --- -- Integer
Number of machinery -- -- Integer
Average Hauling distance m -- Integer
Pine line length (irrigation and drag -- --- Integer
hose)
Fitting and supplies $1,000 -- Integer
(Irrigation and drag hose)
Pipe trailer $1,000 -- Integer
(Irrigation and drag hose)
Pump information .
Number of pumps -- -- Integer
Pump price --- -- Integer
Number of tractors -- -- Integer
Tractor size -- -- Integer
Number of traveler (Irrigation) -- -- Integer
Traveler price (irrigation) $3,000 -- Integer
Swath width (Drag hose) 3 m (10 R) m Integer
Number of injectors 6 shawks --- Integer
Injector price $8,000 -- Integer
Economic information
Labor wage rate $10 -- Integer
Diesel fuel price $1.0 -- Integer
Nutrient price N $0.24 -- Integer
P205 $0.24 -- Integer
K20 $0. 14 -- Integer

Real interest rate 6 % -- Integer
Economic life

Structure 20 years -- Integer

Tractor 10 years -- Integer

Spreaders 7 years -- Integer

Pump/agitator 7 years -- Integer

 

31

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Input
Animal and
crop Machinery Storage Parameter
information
1 l 1
Animal Hauling Machinery
Information option parameters
1 l
Manure Price
composition Parameters
1
Crop rotation
l | l 1 l
Tractor-
Box/V-tank Nurse truck
I TWCk' ' Irri ation Dra hose
drawn spreader Mei: g g
spreader systems spret er
sy stems sys ems
I L l
N u r s e
option
selection
Pu m Nurse
p ‘ volume
selection
Economic
values

 

 

 

Figure 3.2 Input sub-module structure

.w”
I

32

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit
I F l I
Animal and
crop Storage Machinery Parameters
information
1 l L l l
. Animal Manure Crop Rotation Machrnery Price
1nformatron composrtron parameters parameters
1 I l
Hauling Economic
Option Pumps information
1 l l l
Tractor- Box/V-tank Nurse truck . .
ltruck- drawn spreader with spreader Irrigation Drag H053
systems systems systems

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.3 Edit sub-module structure

 

 

 

 

33
3.4.3 Files

There are three file operation sub modules: save, load and delete files. Once data
files are created, the user can save these files with the user name defined. The user
defined data files have a .MCP extension at the end of the file name. The save file
module creates the user defined data files. The load file module retrieves the data files.
The delete module erases the module from the hard disk.

3.4.4 Calculation

The calculation module includes all the calculations for determining values. Data
files are generated in the module and redistributed to sub modules for calculation. There
are five sub-modules: (l) manure production, (2) crop nutrient balance and manure
credits, (3) machinery ownership costs, (4) machinery operating costs and (5) total and

units costs (Figure 3.4).

 

 

 

34

 

 

Run
Calculation

 

 

 

 

 

Manure nutrients

 

 

 

 

 

Hauling rate and
hours

 

 

 

 

 

Machinery costs

 

 

 

 

 

Crop nutrient
balance

 

 

 

 

 

Total and unit
costs

 

 

Figure 3.4 Calculation sub-module structure

35
3.4.5 Report (output)

The output module has four report options: (1) input parameters, (2) machinery
report, (3) crop and nutrient report, (4) and all reports (figure 3.5). At the first output
menu the user selects an output option including display monitor, printer or saving to a
file.

The input parameters report is a summary of machinery, crop, animal and storage
information specified for the analysis. The other two options, machinery report and crop
and nutrient report, are the calculated values of the analysis. The machinery reports
include detailed information of the ownership and operating costs for each machine. The
crop nutrient report includes the nutrient balance sheet for nitrogen and phosphorus for
one or two crop rotations. It also includes a summary of machinery costs, fertilizer

values, manure nutrients and net unit costs.

_—“ N. W flu?"

36

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Report
(Output)
1
I l - 1
. Saviirg in

Dlsplay Printer file
screen

1 1

l l 1
Oriental Machinery Crop Nutrient
[ Data Costs Report All Data
1 L 1 1
Oriental Machinery Crop Nutrient
Data Costs Report All Data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.5 Output sub-module structure

Chapter 4
PROCEDURE

An objective of this study was to develop a computer program to evaluate and
compare manure transport and application systems. Machinery systems compared
include a tractor-drawn tank spreader, box spreader, v-tank spreader, nurse truck with
spreader tank, irrigation and a drag hose system. Eight systems were modeled and
compared on two representative farms. F our crop sequences were compared to evaluate
manure nutrient use. The representative farms were 150 and 600 dairy cows. The range
in hauling distance for the tractor and truck drawn systems was 0 to 16 km (0 to 10 miles)
and the pumping distance for the irrigation and drag hose systems was 0 to 4.8 km (0 to 3
miles).
4-1 Herd information

The average weight of the cow was 640 kg (1,400 lb) and all animals were
assumed to be mature. The size of farm for comparison of the tractor-drawn tank
Spreader, V-tank spreader and box spreader was 150 cows. A representative herd of 600
c0W8 was used to compare the tractor-drawn and truck-drawn spreader tank, the nurse
truck with spreader tank, the irrigation and the drag hose systems. Total solids content
Was four percent for the irrigation and the drag hose systems, eight percent for the tank
SPl‘eader systems, twelve percent for the V-tank and twenty percent for the box spreader
System. Total production of manure was calculated from raw manure production and
bedcling material. Chopped straw was selected as bedding.

37

38
4.2 Machinery selection

Machinery was divided into three groups based on hauling method and herd size.
The first group included a 3,500-gallon tank spreader, a 2,000—gallon V-tank spreader and
a 250-bu box spreader (Table 4.1). The second group consisted of two 3,500-gallon
spreader tanks working in series, and a 7,000-gallon nurse truck and a 3,500-gallon
spreader tank working in parallel (Table 4.2). The third group included an irrigation and
drag hose system (Table 4.3, Table 4.4). For the irrigation system, a pto powered pump
and tractor were used to transfer manure from storage-to-field. Auxiliary pumps were
added at 2 km (1.25 miles) and 4 km (2.5 miles) to increase discharge pressure. A
chopper pump was used at the storage pit to ensure a homogenous mixture of manure.
For the drag hose system, a pto powered pump and tractor were used to transfer manure

to the field with an auxiliary pump added to increase the pressure at 3.2 km (2 miles).

39

Table 4.1 Manure production, equipment size and price for tank spreader, V-tank
spreader and box spreader systems for a representative 150 dairy cow

 

 

 

operation.
Equipment Size Price
SI Unit English Unit
”Tiank spreader
Total manure production 7,900 m3 (2,082,600 gal)
Total solid content 8%
Tractor 105 kW (140 hp) $77,000
Spreader tank 13,200 L (3,500 gal) $12,500
Lagoon pump $11,000
Tractor for pump 75 kW (100 hp) $55,000
V-tank spreader
Total manure production 5200 m3 (1,388,400 gal)
Total solid content 12 %
Tractor 67 kW (90 hp) $49,500
V-tank spreader 7,600 L (2,000 gal) $18,600
Front-end loader 0.67 m3 (24 ft’) $6,000
Tractor 56 kW (75 hp) $41,250
Box spreader
Total manure production 3100 rn3 (90,000 bu)
Total solid content 20 %
Tractor 56 kW (75 hp) $41,250
Box spreader 8.8 m3 (250 bu) $7,900
Front-end loader 0.67 m3 (24 R3) $6,000
Tractor 56 kW (75 hp) $41,250

 

40

Table 4.2 Manure production, equipment size and price for the tractor-drawn tank
spreader, truck-drawn tank spreader, and nurse truck and tank spreader
combination systems for a representative 600 dairy cow operation.

 

,

 

 

Equipment Size Price
SI Unit English Unit
“fr—{€51 manure production 31,500 in3 (8,330,500 gal)
Total solid content 8 %
Tractor drawn spreaders
Tractor (2) 105 kW (140 hp) $77,000
Spreader tank (2) 13,200 L (3,500 gal) $12,500
Pump/agitator Large $1 1,000
Tractor for pump 75 kW (100 hp) $55,000
Truck-drawn spreaders
Truck (2) 105 kW (200 hp) $20,000
Spreader tank (2) 13,200 L (3,500 gal) $12,500
Pump/agitator Large $1 1,000
Tractor for pump 75 kW (100 hp) $55,000
Nurse] spreader
combination
Nurse truck 26,400 L (7,000 gal) $20,000
Tractor 105 kW (140 hp) $77,000
Spreader tank 13,200 L (3,500 gal) $12,500
Purnp/agitator Large $1 1,000
@tor for ptunp 75 kW (100 hp) $55,000

 

 

41

Table 4.3 Manure production, equipment size and price for drag hose system for a

representative 600 dairy cow operation.

 

mpment

 

Size Price
Drag hose

Total manure production 63,000 m3 (16,661,100 gal)

Total solid content 4%

6 in A] Main line Distance from storage to field $3.25/fi
6 in Flex supply line 805 m 2640 ft $23,760
6 in suction hose 7.6 m 25 ft $375
5 in drag hose 201 m 660 11 $7,920
Fittings and supplies $1 ,000
Pipe trailer $1,000
Hydraulic chopper pump $3,000
PTO pump $5,000
Tractor(s) for pump 93 kW 125 hp $68,750
Injectors 6 shanks $8,000
Tractor for injectors 157 kW (210 hp) $115,500

 

Table 4.4 Manure production, equipment size and price for irrigation system for a

representative 600 dairy cow operation.

 

 

 

 

ui ment Size Price
Irrigation

Total manure production 63,000 m3 (16,661,100 gal)
TOtal solid content 4%
6 in A1 Main line Distance from storage to field $3.25/ft
6 in Flex supply line 805 m 2640 11 $23,760
6 in suction hose 7.6 m 25 ft $375
5 in supply hose 201 m 660 it $5,280
Fittings and supplies $1,000
Pipe trailer $1,000
PTO pump $5,000
Tractor(s) for pump 93 kW 125 hp $68,750
Hydraulic chopper pump $3,000
Motorized traveler (1320 ft hose) $20g000

 

42
4,3 Machinery parameters

Cycle time included loading and unloading time, traveling time and maneuvering
time- Traveling speeds varied depending on the tractor or truck was used (Table 4.5).
The representative loading and unloading rate used for pumping were 4,900 L/min (1,300
gpm) (Table 4.6). Loading rate for front-end loaders for V-tank and box spreaders was
assumed to be 20 seconds per bucket. Unloading rate for the box spreader was assumed
to be 4 minutes. Unloading rate for the V-tank spreader was 3,400 L/min (900 gprn). The

field efficiency used for each operation was 0.90 for surface application systems. The

efficiency for drag hose injection was 0.85.

Table 4.5 Representative of truck and tractor travel speeds

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tractor Truck

Travel speed Travel speed

km/hr (mph) km/hr (mph)
SET: Loaded Empty Sirltsnpgg Loaded Empty
S 0.8 km 19 23 S 1.6 km 32 42
S 0.5 mi (12) (14) S 1.0 mi (20) (26)
> 0.8 km 23 27 > 1.6 km 40 50
> 0.5 mi (14) (17) >10 mi (25) (31)

 

Source: Harrigan, 1997

 

43
Table 4.6 Representative time of and material flow rates.

 

 

Parameters Value
Loading/unloading time
Loading rate
with pump 4,900 L/min
(1,300 gpm)
with loader 0.33 min/bucket
Unloading rate
Tank spreader 4,900 L/min
(1,300 gpm)
V-tank spreader 3,400 lein
(900 gpm)
Box spreader 4 min/load
Maneuvering time
Storage to road 2 min
Road to storage 2 min
Road to start of spreading 2 min
End of spreading to road 2 min
Nurse truck hook up time 1min
Nurse truck road to unloading 2 min
Tractor field to hook up 1 min

 

Source: Harrigan 1997

Table 4.7 Machinery parameters

 

 

Repair and maintenance Ecfiflimlc
Equipment gpe RF] RF2 Jer
Tractor 0.0069 2.0 10
Spreader 0.26 l .8 7
Pump/Agitators 0.056 2.0 7

 

Source: ASAE, 1997a

4.4 Economic parameters

Average annual ownership and operating costs were calculated using a period of
10 years for tractors and 7 years for other equipment (Table 4.7). Remaining values of
tractors, spreaders and loaders were calculated based on the Cross and Perry model
(1996). Remaining value for pumps was 30 percent of purchased price. Real interest rate
was six percent and insurance and housing was estimated as one percent of the purchase
Price. Repair and maintenance costs were based on accumulated use. Fuel and
lubrication costs and labor were based on hours of use and diesel fuel price was one
dollar per gallon. Labor wage was ten dollars per hour. Nutrient prices were recent value

in Michigan (LeCueux, 1997).

Table 4.8 Economic parameters

 

Economic values

 

Real interest rate 6 %
Insurance and housing rate 1 % of purchase price
Labor wage rate 10.00 $/hr
Diesel fuel price 1.00 $/gal
Nutrient purchase price N 0.24 Mb

P205 0.24 Mb

K20 0.14 $/lb

45

4,5 Crop information

Nutrient use for four crop sequences was compared. The first rotation was corn
silage and corn grain. The second rotation was wheat grain and corn grain. The third
was sugar beet and corn grain. The fourth was alfalfa hay and alfalfa hay. Nutrient
requirements were estimated based on crop nutrient removal (Table 3.5). Yield goals
were 10,440 L/ha (120 bu/ac) for corn (grain), 45 t/ha (20 ton/ac) for corn (silage), 5220
L/ha (60 bu/ac) for wheat (grain); 45 t/ha (19 ton/ac) for sugar beets, and 13 t/ha (6

ton/ac) for alfalfa hay. These are average yields for Michigan.

Chapter 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The proposed machinery and nutrient management model is a useful tool for
comparing the hauling rate and cost of commonly used manure hauling systems. To
illustrate the ability of the model to describe and compare a range of manure hauling
operations, three spreader tank systems were compared on 150- and 600-cow dairies.
Irrigation and drag hose systems were also compared on the 600-cow farm. Four, two-
year crop sequences were compared to demonstrate nutrient application for nitrogen use
and a phosphorus balance
5.1 Comparison of Manure Hauling Cost and Resource Use
A manure hauling rate was calculated based on cycle time. Cost information was
eStimated based on machinery requirements and hours of use and included machinery

Ownership, repair and maintenance, fuel and lubrication, and labor. Trade-ins, timeliness

Costs and income taxes were not included.

5-1 .1 Manure hauling rate

On the 150-cow operation the hauling rates decreased as hauling distance
increased. Since loading, unloading time and maneuvering time didn't change with the
hauling distance, the decline in hauling rate was due to increased traveling time. The
material hauling rate of the 3,500-gallon tank spreader was almost twice that of the V-
tank spreader and box spreader, but the hauling rates were similar when compared on a

dry matter basis (Figure 5.1, 5.2).

46

47

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5000
+3500 gal tractor-drawn spreader
1 0,000
+2.000 gal V-tank spreader
+250 bu Box spreader 7 4000
___J
8,000 ..
a
.9
II-l
- 3000
I:
9‘ 6,000 ~
3
Fl
_ , 2000
4,000 ..
=15
\\
\ 1000
2,000 \ \_
._\ \
\
o l 1 1 L r 1 1 m L 0

 

0[km] 1.6 3.2 4.8 6.4 8 9.6 11.2 12.8 14.4 16
0[mi] 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 6 9 10

Hauling distance

Figure 5.1 Comparison of hauling rate (DM kg/hr and DM lb/hr) ofa 2000-gallon v-

tank spreader, a 250-bu box spreader and a 3500-gallon tank spreader for a
ISO-cow Operation.

“"3! H0 '31“! 3mm;

48

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 6,000 60000
+3500 gal tractor-drawn spreader ,
1 4,000 » I,
C +2000 gal V-tank spreader - 50000
1 2,000 : +250 bu Box spreader
E -1 40000 F.
._. 10,000 : E,
3‘ 8.000 3 -+ 30000 75
“’ 6
M ..
2 6.000 E
:5 I . 20000 3'
I! I
=3 4,000 .
. a 10000
2,000
‘m—
0 b l I l 1 1 l J l l 0
01m] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 [km] 1.6 3.2 4.8 6.4 8 9.6 11.2 12.8 14.4 16
Hauling distance

Figure 5.2 Comparison of actual hauling rate of a 2000-gallon v-tank spreader, a 250-bu
box spreader and a 3500-gallon tank spreader for a 150-cow operation.

49
The hauling rate for a nurse truck system was constant over 6.4 km (4 mile)

before starting to decline (Figure 5.3). Over this range (0 to 6.4 km), the spreading time
of the spreader tank limited the cycle time of the system. Beyond 6.4 km (4 mile), nurse
trucks required more time to travel from storage to the field and the spreader had to wait
for a nurse truck. The difference in hauling rate between the tractor- and truck- drawn
spreader tank was due to travel speed. The truck-drawn spreader tank had an advantage
since the travel speed was faster (Table 5.1).

The effective spreading rate of the irrigation system was 93,400 liters per hour
(24,680 gal/hr) or 3,680 DM kg per hour (8,100 DM lb/hr). The spreading rate of the
drag hose system was 88,500 liters per hour (23,390 gal/hr) or 3,490 DM kg per hour
(7,680 DM lb/hr) (Table 5.1). The manure flow rates for the irrigation and the drag hose
system was 1,890 L/min (500 gpm). The drag hose system covered 8.1 hectares (20
acres) and irrigation covered 3.4 hectares (8.3 acres)

per hose set. Irrigation needed to reset the system more frequently than the drag

hose system and this increased application time.

50

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

  

25,000
+2-3,500 gal truck-drawn spreader «
+3 operators, 2-Nurse truck 81 1 10000
20 000 spreader tank ,
a 1 8000 a:
3 E.
v-I ] £-
215,000 .
° 7 ii
. ~~ 6000
a . .6
a . .
04 . :3
3110.000 . z
"-1 ~ 4000 II'
4 all
3 E
:1:
5,000 ‘
2000
O l r l l 1 1 1 l 1 o

 

 

 

0[km]1.6 3.2 4.8 6.4 8 9.6 11.2 12.8 14.4 16
0[mi]12345678910

Hauling distance

Figure 5.3 Comparison of hauling rates (DM kg/hr and DM lb/hr) for 2-3,500 gallon
truck-drawn spreader tanks and 3-operator nurse-spreader combination for a
600-cow Operation.

51

 

 

 

 

 

35,000 ___
+2-3,500 gal tmck-drawn spreader
, ~~ 120000
30,000 — -I—3 operators, 2-Nurse truck 81 1 .
spreader tank 4
~ 100000
.8 25,000 .
a . 9
° ‘ E.
III ' 80000 j...
E 20.000 « at:
g 4 60000 a”
a: 15,000 . ‘8
g: I"
afi E
a 10,000 ”10°00
:1
5,000 L .. 20000

 

 

O
L
L

O

 

0[mi] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0[km] 1.6 3.2 4.8 6.4 8 9.6 11.2 12.8 14.4 16

Hauling distance

Figure 5.4 Comparison of actual hauling rate for 2-3,500 gallon truck—drawn spreader
tanks and 3-operator nurse-spreader combination for a 600—cow operation.

52

Table 5.1 Comparison of hauling rates over a range of transport distance.

 

 

 

Average Hauling Distance
[km] 1.6 4.8 8.0 16
[mi] 1 3 5 10
150 cow operations
3,500 gal tractor-drawn Ulr 34,600 19,711) 13,700 7,800
spreader gait: 9,100 5,200 3,600 2,100
Dng/lr 2,720 1,550 1,080 620
BMW 6.111) 3,420 2.390 1.360
2,000 gal V-tank spreader Mr 17,911) 10,10) 7,10) 4,000
galllr 4,700 2,700 1,900 1,100
Dng/Ir 2,110 1,200 840 470
BMW 4.650 2640 1.840 1.050
250 bu box spreader [At 14,111) 7&1) 5,4(D 3,11!)
BM! 667 221 154 86
Dng/lr 2,770 1,540 1,070 600
DMUI'I‘ 6,110 3.380 2.350 1,310
600 cow operations
2-3,500 gal tractor-drawn Mr 69,1(1) 39,400 27,500 15,700
Spreaders grill! 18,300 10,400 7,300 4,200
Dng/lr 5,450 3,100 2,170 1,240
BMW 120D 6,830 4.7% 2,730
2—3,500 gal truck-drawn Ulr 78,611) 55,211) 41,41!) 25,40)
spreaders gal/Ir 20,800 14,600 10,900 6,700
Dng/Ir 6,200 4,350 3,260 2,000
DMb‘Ir 13.650 9590 7,180 4,420
3 operators, 2-Nurse truck Ulr 65,711) 65,7(D 62,711) 42,511)
& 1 spreader tank galh 17,400 17,400 16,600 11,200
Dng/lr 5,180 5,180 4,940 3,350
DMhllr 11.400 11.411) 10.811) 7.380
Irrigation Ulr 93,400 93,400 — —
83"! 24.680 24.680 — —
Dng/lr 3,680 3,680 — —
DMMI' 8,1(0 8,1(1) — —
Drag hose Urr 88,530 88,530 — —
gal/Ir 23390 23390 — -
Dng/Ir 3,490 3,490 — —
DMbtr 7.680 7.680 — -

 

53
5.1.2 Machinery Ownership Costs

Total ownership costs for the ISO-cow operation (Table 5.2) with the 3,500-gallon
tank spreader increased from $13,780 to $17,370 from a hauling distance of 1.6km (1
mile) to 16 (10 mile). The ownership costs for 2,000-gallon V-tank spreader ranged from
$12,300 to $13,930. The ownership costs for 250-bu box spreader increased from $9,920
to $11,350. This increase in ownership cost was due to higher depreciation costs with
increased use. The remaining value of the machinery decreased with increasing hours of
use.

Machinery ownership costs for the 600-cow operation (Table 5.3) with 2-3,500
gallon truck-drawn spreaders were the lowest. Using more tractors for the operation
costs more than using trucks to transport.

The ownership costs for the irrigation and drag hose equipment increased as the
pumping distance increased because the system required additional pumps to maintain
the discharge pressure. The costs for irrigation were higher because this system required
more auxiliary pumps to maintain higher system pressure (Table 5.4). Therefore,
ownership costs for pumps were higher than these for a drag hose system. The number of
the tractors used in both irrigation and the drag hose systems was the same, but the drag
hose system required a larger tractor for injection.

5.1.3 Repair and Maintenance Costs
The highest repair and maintenance cost for the ISO-cow Operation was the V-
tank spreader. The cost was 2.5 times higher than the tank spreader and 4 times higher
than the box spreader. Other differences were in loading equipment. Using a pump and a

tractor for loading lead to higher repair and maintenance costs than using a loader.

54
The tractor-drawn spreader had the highest repair and maintenance costs for the

600-cow operation (Table 5.3). At the 16 km (10 mile) hauling distance, the repair and
maintenance cost for the tractor-drawn system was nearly eight times higher than the
nurse truck operation and the cost for the truck-drawn system was about three times
higher than the nurse truck operation. The repair and maintenance costs for tractor- or
truck-drawn systems increased rapidly beyond 3 miles. The costs for nurse truck with
spreader increased beyond 5 miles.

The repair and maintenance costs increased with pumping distance for both
irrigation and drag hose systems. This difference in costs was due to the additional
tractors needed to maintain the discharge pressure. At 4.8 km (3 mile), irrigation had
higher pump and agitator costs because it required three pumps instead of the two pumps

of the drag hose system (Table 5.4).

5
5

 

 

 

 

8%: 83 83 on... 824 85.: 22 Sam 80.; 8n: 8% 8% a gaggh
83m 83 8a a: 8mm 85 8m 28 o o c o a gufism
o o c o o c o o c8... 88; 8o; 84 a gee 83...
o o o o o c o o 83. as... 8e 8N a iii
82: 8% 83 So 858 Sac 83 83 84.2 8% 88a 83 m gum;
o o o o c c c o c o o c a 3.5.
83 8.} o; 8m 83 83 8} Se 8% 83 8} 98 m 83...
aged}
83 _ 8:: 83: 88.8 88.: 2.3 28.2 cone Sn: 8%: 92.: 8e: a 88%3889
8% 8% 8% 83 8mm 8% 8% Sea o o o o a 8823;
o c o c o o c c on? 8% 83. 83. a $28.. 83p.
o c o o o o o o 9e; 83 ca: 83 a fig
8a.. 8a.. 83 as; 83 83 83 83 8e; 83 8a.. 83 a 8.8—mm;
o o o o c c o o o o o c m 3:...
23. 8mm 8mm 8mm 8% Sow 83. oz... 83 SE 8% 83 a 88F
€581.85
E 2 En E; a: 2:: in B; a: 2:: ES 2; a:
.52 .5; .5. 3. 5.2 .52 .5; .5. 3. .53.. .5. 2 .5; .5. 3. .5 3
838mm xon as $3 532% x535 Em coed 338mm x53 Em oom.m 8089:?”—
835 332 8o 8:8

3 93 m.m.$ Ex 2 98 w 6+ ._ He eowflao 38.62 a 8m 380 35:08.88 93 :32 98 9282.30 mo cognac—OD N6 033.

56

 

 

 

 

30.3 000.0. 00...... 0056. 03.3 000.00 03.3 000.~. 000.03 000.5 030.3... 000.0 . a ”Rafi—200.0%”. .80...
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m wage—05.3.".
050.0 050.0 0003 0.0.3 00...... 03.0 050.0 00 ..~ 00..00 000.3. 000.0 030.3 0 E80 05.8....
0006 0w..~ 000.. 000.. 03.0. 000.0 0.0.3 000.. 00060 000... 000. 0 000.. m wan-9.03.53.
03.0 00....V 00..v 00...V 03.9q 000.0. 00.... 000.0 000.00. 003.00 000.3 03... m game—EH3.
000.0 000.... 0.0.0 0.0.0 30.0 000.0 000... 03.0 0 0 0 0 w 605....
2 E. 83 88.. 88.. o o o o 80.8 83: 88.2 88.0 a 83...
gait:
000.3 000.3 005.3 000.3 000.3 000.3 0.0.3 0.0.3 000.00 003.0 000.0 000.. 0 0 38?.50...
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ginning...
00.... 000.0. 000.0. 003.0. 0003. 00.... 000.0. 000.0 000.3. 000... 00m... 00.0. 0 Eb. EH.
03.0 03.0 03.0 03.0 03.0 03.0 03.0 03.0 03.0 03.0 03.0 03.0 m gab—E
000.. 000.. 000.. 000.. 000.0 000.0 30.0 000.0 000.0 050.0 0.0.0 0.0.0 0 game—HHS.
25. 8...... 83.... 83.... as.“ 28... 8”... as... c o o o a and...
03... 03... 00 . .b 00 . .h 0 0 0 0 000.0. 000.... 000.0. 00..0. m 3.0.
888125
.E 0. .E 0 .E 0 .E. .E 0. .E0 .50 .E . .E 0. .80 .80 .E.
8:0. :20 E0. 0..V ~5. 0.. :20. 5.0 no.0... EU. 0.. 8x0. .5; :20... .50..
8.38% 80.38% 5580 0.25 .3 000.03 80.52% =3~€L8oab 0% 000.03 82:03.00.
-. 05 8.2.5 8.593 5882.90 .
8:8... 8.32 .o .85.. 2

08 0.0. 0 no. 0. Ba 0 .0... .. a 8.3.8.. 38.80 a s. 3.8 8:83:38 as. 8...: .05. @2238 8.... 98.538 0.0 0.3.

57

Table 5.4 Comparison of ownership and repair and maintenance costs for pipeline
systems for 600-cow Operations at 1 and 4.8 km (1 and 3 miles) of hauling

 

 

 

 

distance.
Equipment Irrigation Drag hose
1.6 km 4.8 km 1.6 km 4.8 km
1 mi 3 mi 1 mi 3 mi
me'slfimm
Tm $ 6,690 20,000 17,100 23,800
Tnnks $ 0 0 0 0
MaureSpmhs $ 0 0 0 0
WW $ 750 2,240 750 1,490
Chopperpmp $ 450 450 450 450
Mmrimduavder $ 2,980 2,980 0 0
Inigaiamagl'nseeqfipnm $ 7,240 12,300 8,380 13,400
Total maushipoosts $ 18,1 10 37,970 26,680 39,140
Rani-81m
Trams $ 2,610 7,840 5,720 8,320
Trudcs $ 0 0 0 0
MaueSpexhs $ 0 0 0 0
Ptmps/Ag'mas $ 720 2,170 720 1,440
Gmpperpmp $ 430 430 430 430
Windham $ 2,890 2,890 0 0
Inigaim/Daglmeliqfimm 5 7,800 1 1,900 8,080 13,000
Total Repair&MairMmoe $ 14,450 25,230 14,950 23,190
5.1.4 Fuel use

A comparison of fuel use across transport systems and farms is given in Table 5.5.
Fuel use increased with hauling distance with each option for the ISO-cow operation.
The average fuel used per cow-year at 1.6 km (1.0 mile) was 60.8 liters per cow-year
( 16.1 gal/cow-yr) for the tank spreader, 53.8 liter per cow-year (14.2 gal/cow-yr) for the
V-tank spreader, and 37.2 liter per cow-yr (9.8 gal/cow-yr) for the box spreader system.
At the 8.0 km (5.0 mile) distance, fuel use was 153 liter per cow-yr (28.2 gal/cow-yr) for
the tank spreader, 136 liter per cow-yr (35.8 gal/cow-yr) for the V-tank spreader, and 97

liter per cow-yr (25.6 gal/cow-yr) for the box spreader. The tank spreader had the highest

58
fuel use because of the larger tractor and longer hauling hours. The box spreader had the

lowest fuel use as it had the least hauling time and the smallest tractor.

Fuel use for the tractor drawn spreader increased sharply compared to truck-
drawn spreaders and nurse trucks for the 600-cow operation(Table 5.5). At the 1.6 km
(1.0 mile) transport distance, the fuel use of the truck system was. 39.5 liter per cow-yr
(16.1 gal/cow-yr) and the fuel use of the nurse truck system was 65.9 liter per cow-yr
(17.4 gal/cow-yr). In contrast, the lowest fuel use at the 8.0 km (5.0 mile) distance was
the nurse truck system, 69 liter per cow-yr (18.2 gal/cow-yr) and the highest was the
tractor-drawn system, 153 liter per cow-yr (40.3 gal/cow-yr), which was more than
double the nurse truck system.

Fuel use for irrigation increased when additional pumps were added to increase
pressure, at 2 km (1.25 mile) and 4 km (2.5 mile) transport distance. Fuel use for the
drag hose system also increased when pumps were added at 3.2 km (2 mile). At 4.8 km (3
mile), the cost for irrigation was higher than the drag hose since it required more pumps

to maintain system pressure.

59

Table 5.5 Comparison of fuel use at l, 4.6, 8 and 16 km (1,3,5 and 10 miles) of

 

 

 

 

distance.
Avegge HaulinLDistance
[km] 1.6 4.8 8.0 16
[mi] 1 3 5 10
150 cow operations
3,500 gal tractor-drawn Uoow-yr 60.8 106.7 152.6 267.3
spreader (gal/oow-yr) ( 16. 1) (28.2) (40.3) (70.6)
2,000 gal V-tank spreader quw-yr 53.8 94.7 135.6 238.0
(gal/oow-yr) (14.2) (25.0) (35.8) (62.9)
250 bu box spreader Uoow-yr 37 .2 67.1 96.9 171.5
(gd/oow-yr) (9.8) (17.7) (25.6) (45.3)
600 cow operations

2-3,500 gal tractor-drawn Uoow—yr 60.8 106.7 152.6 267.3
spreaders (gal/oow-yr) (16.1) (28.2) (40.3) (70.6)
2-3,500 gal truck-drawn Uoow-yr 39.5 56.2 75.0 122.0
spreaders (gal/cow-yr) (10.4) (14.8) (19.8) (32.2)
3 operators, 2-Nurse truck Uoow-yr 65.9 65.9 69.0 101.8
& 1 spreader tank (gal/oow-yr) (17.4) (17.4) (18.2) (26.9)

Irrigation UwW-yr 25.3 67.4 ---s ---

(gal/oow-yr) (6.7) (17.8) --- ---

Drag hose Uoow-yr 56.3 98.2 --- ---

(gal/oow-yr) (14.9) (26.0) --- ---

5.1.5 Labor

Labor required for the 600-cow operations ranged from 1.34 to 2.4 hour per cow-
year at the 1.6 km (1.0 mile) distance and from 1.49 to 1.96 hour per cow-year for the
ISO-cow operation at 1.6 km (1.0 mile) distance (Table 5.6). The differences were
greater at the longer hauling distance. The labor requirement ranged from 3.71 to 6.69
hour per cow-year for the 600-cow operations at the 16 km (10 mile) and 6.69 to 8.66
hours per cow-year for the ISO-cow operations at the 16 km (10 mile) distance (Table
5.6). The nurse truck system had the lowest labor hours per cow-year at 16 km (10 mile)

even though three operators were needed for this system.

60
The labor for the irrigation and drag hose systems was constant, 2.02 hours per

cow-year for the drag hose system and 2.02 hours per cow-year for the irrigation system
(Table 5.6). Labor hours depended on number of workers and activity hours. The
number of operators was two for both systems. The activity hours included set up,
pumping, reset and clean up time. System set up and clean up time was four hours for
each system. Reset time between fields were one hour for irrigation and two hours for

the drag hose system.

Table 5.6 Comparison of labor at 1, 4.6, 8 and 16 km (1,3,5 and 10 miles) of hauling

 

 

 

distance.
Average Hauling Distance
[km] 1.6 4.8 8.0 16
[mi] 1 3 5 10
hrlcow-yr
150 cow operations
3,500 gal tractor-drawn 1.52 2.67 3.49 6.69
spreader
2,000 gal V-tank spreader 1.96 3_45 493 8.66
250 bu box spreader 1.49 2.68 3.88 6.87
600 cow operations
2-3,500 gal tractor-drawn 1.52 2.67 3.82 6.69
spreaders
2-3,500 gal truck-drawn 1.34 1.90 2.54 4,13
spreaders
3 operators, 2-Nurse truck
& l spreader tank 2'40 2.40 2.52 3.71
“18mm 2.02 2.02

Drag ““6 2.02 2.02

 

61
5.2 Effect of Crop Sequence on nutrient recovery and use

Nutrient recovery varied depending on the crop sequence and nutrient selected for
the nutrient balance. Manure nutrients were applied to meet the nitrogen removal for the
first crop year or to meet phosphate removal for two years of crop growth. Four crop
sequences were evaluated using a nitrogen and phosphorus balance while using a 3,500-
gallon spreader for surface spreading and incorporation within one day.

Total nitrogen in the manure was 3.0 kg/IOOOL (25 lb/1000gal). Available
organic nitrogen was 0.69 kg/1000L (5.7 lb/ 1000ga1), ammonium N was 0.42 kg/1000L
(3.5 lb/1000 gal) and nitrate was 0.15 kg/1000L (1.25 lb/1000gal). Total available
nitrogen in manure for the first year was 1.2 kg/1000L (10.4 1b/1000 gal). Volatilization
loss was 0.14 kg/1000L (1.2 1b/1000 gal) and residual unavailable organic nitrogen was
1.6 kg/1000L (13 lb/1000gal). Total nitrogen loss and unavailable organic nitrogen for
the first year was 1.7 kg/1000 L (14.2 lb/ 1000gal). Phosphorus and potassium loss was
assumed to be minimal. Only the unused organic nitrogen was available in subsequent
years since other unused nitrogen was assumed to be lost by leaching or volatilization.
5.2.1 Corn silage Icorn grain sequence

The volume of manure applied in the first year to meet crop requirements for
nitrogen use was 169,300 L/ha (18,120gal/ac) and phosphorus balance was 96,900 L/ha
(10,400 gal/ac). Manure nutrients applied in the first year for nitrogen use were 211
kg/ha (188 lb/ac) of nitrogen, 223 kg/ha (199 lb/ac) of phosphate, and 385 kg/ha (344
lb/ac) of potash. These nutrient values were adjusted with moisture content and nitrogen
losses. All nutrients required for corn silage were supplied by manure. In the second

year, 58 kg/ha (52 lb/ac) of organic nitrogen was mineralized and available (Table 5.7),

62
142 kg/ha (127 lb/ac) of phosphate, and 211 kg/ha (188 lblac) of potash available from

unused nutrients applied in the first year. Commercial nitrogen was applied in year two
to meet crop requirements, but phosphorus and potash requirements were met from
manure from the first year. After the second crop year, about 40 percent of phosphate
and potash in the manure applied in year one remained in the soil (Table 5.8). Thus, this

sequence was not efficient use of phosphate and potash.

Table 5.7 Nitrogen budget for a com silage/corn grain sequence using an N-based
manure application.

 

 

 

Typeofmuern’trogr m N
Cop . Carmacid fir
ml 01ch M?“ NitraeN TotalN Fertiliza' sinequane
yea-
Yearl kg/ha 211 115 71 25 211 0 58
1b/ac 1 88 103 63 22 l 88 0 52
year 2 kg/ha 121 58 0 0 58 63 29
1b/ac 108 51.6 0.0 0.0 51.6 56.4 25

 

Less manure was applied to obtain a phosphorus balance over two years than was
needed for nitrogen use in year one. Manure nutrients applied were 121 kg/ha (108 lblac)
of nitrogen, 128 kg/ha (114 lb/ac) of phosphate and 221 kb/ha (197 lblac) of potash.
Commercial nitrogen was supplied to meet crop nutrient requirements in the first year. In
the second year, manure nutrients were still available to meet phosphate and potash
requirements. Organic nitrogen was available in the second year, but additional
commercial nitrogen was needed. Therefore, 87 kg/ha (78 lblac) of commercial nitrogen

was applied in the second year. Most manure nutrients were used in these two crop years

63

and few nutrients were left compared to an application for nitrogen use. Thus, applying

manure nutrients for a phosphorus balance provided a more efficient use of manure

nutrients (Table 5.9)

Table 5.8 Nutrient use for a corn silage/com grain sequence using N-based manure

 

 

 

 

application.
Nitrggen Use
Year 1 Year 2
Crop sequence Corn (silage) Com (grain)
Application method Broad cast
Yield goal 45 0118 10440 um
(20 ton/acre) (120 bu/acre)
Volume of manure applied 169,330Uha
(18,120 gallons/acre)
Land needed 46.6 ha
(115 acres)
Rate 0.20 ha/hr
(0.50 acre /hr)
N P205 [(20 Total N P205 K20 Total
Mange ms's Mm l .2 [.3 2.3 -- -- -
(11100091) (10) (ll) (19) -- -- -
Mum and m 211 223 385 -- .— .-
(bt) (188) (199) (344) ~- -- --
oome-ianmqum kgl'a 211 81 175 121 47 36
(Me) (188) (72) (156) (108) (42) (32)
Mmme “mused W 211 81 175 58 47 36
(bin) (188) (72) (156) (52) (42) (32)
Conunemial fafilimr 1‘9“! 0 0 0 63 0 0
(hire) (0) (0) (0) (56) (0) (0)
Raw “m [gin 58 142 211 29 95 175
(my) (52) (127) (188) (26) (85) (156)
WWW “a “1.41 “3.21 “7.07 333.69 -- -- -- -
(Sk) (45.12) (47.84) (48.20) (141.16) - -- - --
WWW sh. 111.41 42.67 53.93 208.01 30.59 24.89 11.21 66.69
(54;) (45.12) (17.28) (21.84) (84.24) (12.39) (10.08) (4.54) (27.01)
W W m Sh: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.41 0.00 0.00 33.41
(m) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (13.53) (0.00) (0.00) (13.53)
mm nmm 313 29.33 70.54 60.15 160.02 15.31 50.57 53.88 119.75
(341:) (12.39) (30.56) (26.36) (69.31) (6.20) (20.48) (21.82) (48.510)

 

Table 5.9 Nutrient use for a corn silage/com grain sequence using P-based manure

application.

64

 

Phosphorus Balance

 

 

 

Year 1 Year 2
Crop sequence Corn (silage) Corn (grain)
Application method Broad cast
Yield goal 45 W8 10440 Uha
(20 ton/acre) (120 bu/acre)
Volume of manure applied 98,900 Uha
(10,400 gallons/acre)
Land needed 81.4 ha
(201 acres)
Rate 0.36 ha/hr
(0.88 acre lhr)
N P205 K20 Total N P205 K20 Total
threanlysis mm 1.2 1.3 2.3 .... .. ..
(monogi) (10) (11) (19) ... ... ..

Mmureqrplied kgra 121 128 221 .. .. ..

(bk) (108) (114) (197) .— .. ...
Qwle-equ'red [(ng 211 81 175 121 47 36

(up) (188) (72) (156) (108) (42) (32)
Mmm "mm m 121 81 175 34 47 36

(up) (108) (72) (156) (30) (42) (41)
Conunercial fertilizer kghr 90 0 0 87 0 0

(bit) (80) (0) (0) (78) (0) (0)
Ram um kgl'n 34 47 46 17 0 10

(his) (30) (42) (41) (15) (0) (9)
Mmmnmmplm Ska 63.73 67.56 68.07 199.33 —- ~- .. ..

(36:) (25.81) (27.36) (27.57) (80.73) ... -- -- -—
anm Sin 63.73 42.67 53.93 160.32 17.51 24.89 11.21 53.58

(St) (25.81) (17.28) (21.84) (64.93) (7.09) (10.08) (4.54) (21.70)
W fertilim' value Ska 47.68 0.00 0.00 47.68 46.49 0.00 0.00 46.49

M) (19.31) (0.00) (0.00) (19.31) (18.83) (0.00) (0.00) (18.83)
Raw Nun-m value $13 17.51 24.89 14.15 56.54 8.74 0.00 2.94 l 1.68

M) (7.09) ( 10.08) (5.73) (22.90) (3 .54) (0.00) (1.19) (4.74)

 

65
5.2.2 Wheat grain/com grain sequence

The volume of manure applied was 64,900 L/ha (6,940 gal/ac) for nitrogen use in
year one and 67,300 L/ha (7,200 gal/ac) for a phosphorus balance over two years. More
manure was needed to meet phosphorus needs than nitrogen with this sequence. Manure
nutrients applied to meet the nitrogen needs for wheat grain were 81 kg/ha (72 lb/ac) of
nitrogen, 85 kg/ha (76 1b/ac) of phosphate and 148 kg/ha (132 lb/ac) of potash. All
nutrients were supplied by manure and no commercial fertilizer was used in the first year.
Only organic nitrogen was carried over to year two. Phosphorus and potash needs were
met by manure in the second year. After the two years of crop sequence, 58 percent of
the potash from the manure application in the year one was lefi in soil (Table 5.10).

Applying manure for a phosphorus balance allowed a higher application rate than
for nitrogen use. Nutrients applied for a phosphorus balance were 84 kg/ha (75 lblac) of
nitrogen, 88 kg/ha (79 lb/ac) of phosphate and 153 kg/ha (137 lb/ac) of potash. Manure
nutrients were available for all of the crop nutrient needs in the first year. All of the
phosphate and potash and about 15 percent of nitrogen for corn grain in the second year
was supplied. After two crop years, about 60 percent of applied potash still remained in
the soil (Table 5.11). Only unused organic nitrogen remained and phosphate was
completely consumed with both a phosphorus balance and nitrogen use. More
commercial fertilizer was purchased in the second year when applying for nitrogen use,
but there were less unused nutrients after the two years of crop growth. So, this was a

good sequence if the goal was to match nutrients applied with nutrients used.

66
Table 5.10 Nutrient use for a wheat grain/corn grain sequence using N-based manure

 

 

 

 

application.
Nitrogen Use
Year 1 Year 2
Crop sequence Wheat (grain) Corn (grain)
Application method Broad cast
Yield goal 5220 Uha 10440 L/ha
(60 bu/acre) (120 bu/acre)
Voltune of manure applied 64,850 Uha
(6,940 gallons/acre)
Land needed 122 ha
(300 acres)
Rate 0.53 ha/hr
(1.32 acre lhr)
N P205 K20 Total N P205 K20 Total
Mamanlys's kglm 1.2 1.3 2.3 — -- --
(many!) (10) (ll) (19) -- -- —-
Magnum“ lcgtn 81 85 145 -- -— .—
(bk) (72) (76) (132) .— .. ..
QwNmmqu'nd kgln 81 41 26 121 47 36
(um) (72) (37) (23) (108) (42) (32)
m mm (m! kgtn 81 41 26 22 4 36
(118:) (72) (37) (23) (20) (39) (32)
Conunerc'nl fatilizer 1:91! 0 0 0 100 3 0
(Mn) (0) (0) (0) (88) (3) (0)
mm m 22 44 122 11 o 86
(ha) (20) (39) (109) (10) (0) (77)
Mmure W W flu 42.67 45.23 45.58 133.48 -- - -- -
(sec) (17.28) (18.32) (18.46) (54.06) .— ... ... ..
Mann-cum vane Sh 42.67 22.05 7.88 72.59 11.23 23.19 11.21 46.12
(341:) (17.28) (8.93) (3.19) (29.40) (4.75) (9.39) (4.54) (18.68)
Cam fafiflm m flu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.27 1.70 0.00 53.98
(51:) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (21.17) (0.695) (0.00) (21.86)
Residufl NM value $13 11.23 23.19 37.70 72.62 5.85 0.00 25.60 32.37
(33:) (4.75) (9.39) (15.27) (29.41) (2.37) (0.00) (10.37) (13.11)

 

67
Table 5.11 Nutrient use for a wheat grain/corn grain sequence using P-based manure

 

 

 

 

application.
Phosphorus Balance
Year 1 Year 2
Crop sequence Wheat (grain) Corn (grain)
Application method Broad cast
Yield goal 5220 um 10440 um
(60 bu/acre) (120 bu/acre)
Volume of manure applied 67,300 Uha
(7,200 gallons/acre)
Land needed 117 ha
(289 acres)
Rate 0.51 ha/hr
(1.27 acre lhr)
N P205 K20 Total N P205 K20 Total
Mann-e “1,733 mm 1.2 1.3 2.3 - -- -
(b’ltmgi) (10) (ll) (19) -- - --
Mange “I“ Rain 84 88 153 -- - --
(um) (75) (79) ( 137) -- ~- .—
ompnmmquied kgtn 81 41 26 121 47 36
(has) (72) (37) (23) (108) (42) (32)
Mange "W M mm 8 I 41 26 24 47 36
(his) (72) (37) (23) (21) (42) (32)
Cormrae'al fertilizar Rain 0 0 0 97 0 0
(Mr) (0) (0) (0) (87) (0) (0)
Residual nutrient kgin 24 47 128 11 0 92
(bit) (2 l) (42) (l 14) (10) (0) (82)
Mange mm W “B 44.27 46.94 47.28 140.42 -- -- -- --
(SR) (17.93) (19.01) (19.15) (56.09) -- - -- --
Mamnuu-ientvahe m 42.67 22.05 7.88 72.59 12.15 24.89 11.21 48.25
M) (17.28) (8.93) (3.19) (29.40) (4.92) (10.08) (4.54) (19.54)
W W value 5hr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.85 0.00 0.00 51.85
M) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (21.00) (0.00) (0.00) (21.00)
Raking] Nun-bu value $113 12.15 24.89 39.41 76.44 6.07 0.00 28.20 34.30
(St) (4.92) (10.08) (15.96) (30.96) (2.46) (0.00) (11.42) (13.89)

 

68
5.2.3 Sugar beet/corn grain sequence

The volume of manure applied was 68,500 L/ha (7,300 gal/ac) for nitrogen use
and 56,700 L/ha (6,100 gal/ac) for a phosphorus balance. Manure nutrients applied to
meet the nitrogen requirement for sugar beet in year one were 85 kg/ha (76 lb/ac) of
nitrogen, 91 kg/ha (81 lb/ac) of phosphate and 156 kg/ha (139 lb/ac) of potash. This
application supplied all nutrients for the first year and all phosphate and potash
requirements for the second year. Commercial nitrogen was needed to meet the
requirement for corn in the second year and 97 kg/ha (87 lb/ac) of nitrogen was applied.
After two crop years, 11 kg/ha (10 lblac) of nitrogen, 16kg/ha (14 lb/ac) of phosphate
and 44 kg/ha (49 lblac) of potash remained unused in the soil (Table 5.12).

The amount of manure applied for a phosphorus balance was lower than for
nitrogen use. Manure nutrients applied were 74 kg/ha (66 lb/ac) of nitrogen, 75 kg/ha (57
lb/ac) of phosphate, and 129 kg/ha (115 lb/ac) of potash. The amount of commercial
fertilizer applied was about the same for nitrogen use or for a phosphorus balance. Fifteen
kg/ha (13 lb/ac) of commercial nitrogen was applied in the first year and 102 kg/ha (91
lb/ac) in the second year. Residual nutrients after two years were lower than with
nitrogen use, 10 kg/ha (9 lblac) of nitrogen and 22 kg/ha (20 1b/ac) of potash (Table
5.13). The phosphorus balance with this sequence was the most efficient because most
of manure nutrients were consumed and less unused nutrients were left after two years
even though the amount of commercial fertilizer applied in the second year was almost

the same.

69

Table 5.12 Nutrient use for a sugar beet/com grain sequence N-based manure application

 

 

 

 

Nitrogen Use
Year 1 Year 2
Crop sequence Sugar beets Corn (grain)
Application method Broad cast
Yield goal 43 m 4230 L/ha
( l9 ton/acre) (120 bu/acre)
Volume of manure applied 68,450 Uha
(7,330 gallons/acre)
Land needed 115 ha
(284 acres)
Rate 0.51 ha/hr
(1.25 acre /hr)
N P205 K20 Total N P205 [(20 Total
Manlemdysis mm. 1.2 1.3 2.3 .. ... ..
07100091) (10) (H) (19) - -- --
Mammplied kgha 85 91 156 .. .. ...
(Um) (76) (81) (139) -- -- --
Cromeianmqu'md kgln 85 28 71 121 47 36
M) (76) (25) (63) (108) (42) (32)
Mum m1: 13a! 1:313 85 28 71 24 47 36
(MB) (76) (25) (63) (21) (42) (32)
Cormnafil ferulrzer Rate 0 0 0 97 0 0
(bit) (0) (0) (0) (87) (0) (0)
Ram um 1:31;: 22 63 85 11 16 49
(bin) (21) (56) (76) (10) (I4) (44)
Many: nun-bu W Mn 45.04 47.75 48.12 140.89 -- -- -- -
(sac) (18.24) (19.34) (19.49) (57.06) — .— — .—
Mmure nun-kn vahe flu 45.04 14.64 21.68 81.36 12.37 24.89 11.21 48.47
(541:) (18.24) (5.93) (8.78) (32.95) (5.01) (10.08) (4.54) (19.63)
Canmacial fertiliza- value Sta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.63 0.00 0.00 51.63
(SE) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (20.91) (0.00) (0.00) (20.91)
Raw NM m Stu 12.37 33.11 26.44 71.93 6.20 8.22 15.23 29.65
M (5.01) (13.41) (10.71) (29.13) (2.51) (3.33) (6.17) (12.01)

 

70

Table 5.13 Nutrient use for a sugar beet/com grain sequence P-based manure application

 

 

 

 

Phosphorus Balance
Year 1 Year 2
Crop sequence Sugar beets Corn (grain)
Application method Broad cast
Yield goal 43 um 4230 um
( 19 ton/acre) (120 bu/acre)
Volume of manure applied 56,700 L/ha
(6,100 gallons/acre)
Land needed 139 ha
(343 acres)
Rate 0.61 ha/hr
(1.51 acre lhr)
N P205 K20 Total N P205 K20 Total
Mmmeanalysis kgfleL 1.2 1.3 2.3 .. .. ..
Mng) (10) (11) (19) -- -- .—
Mammplied Rain 71 75 129 .. .. ..
(b‘m) (63) (67) (1 15) -- -- —-
Q'op Nm'iajt requiajl kgin 85 28 71 121 47 36
(bk) (76) (25) (63) (108) (42) (32)
Maturenutriartused kgfn 71 28 71 19 47 0
(11$) (63) (25) (63) (17) (42 (32)
W W 1:91;. 15 0 o 102 0 0
(Has) (13) (0) (0) (9|) (0) (0)
Raidud 11m kgl'n 19 47 59 10 0 22
(MC) (17) (42) (53) (9) (0) (20)
Mann-e nutrient W fin 37.28 39.53 39.83 116.64 -- -- - -
(366) (15.10) (16.01) (16.13) (47.24) .— .. .. ...
Mmure nun-m vane Sin 37.28 14.64 21.68 73.58 10.25 24.89 1 1.21 46.32
(5k) (15.10) (5.93) (8.78) (28.80) (4.15) (10.08) (4.54) (18.76)
Comma'cial fafilizn- value Ska 7.75 0.00 0.00 7.75 53.75 0.00 0.00 53.75
M) (3.14) (0.00) (0.00) (3.14) (21.77) (0.00) (0.00) (21.77)
Raidual Nun-flan value Sin 10.25 24.89 18.15 53.28 5.1 1 0.00 6.96 12.07
941;) (4.15) ( 10.08) (7.35) (21.58) (2.07) (0.00) (2.82) (4.89)

 

71
5.2.4 Alfalfa] alfalfa sequence

Alfalfa is a legume and it does not require nitrogen fertilizer since it can fix it
from the atmosphere. This sequence required a high potash application compared to
other sequences. The volume of manure applied was 102,000 L/ha (11,000 gal/ac) for a
phosphorus balance. Since alfalfa is legume, nitrogen was assumed not to use by the
alfalfa and lost through volatilization, leaching or was unused in organic form. Thus, 127
kg/ha (113 lblac) of nitrogen was lost to environment in the first year. Sixty-seven kg/ha
(60 lb/ac) of phosphate from manure were used each year and no unused nutrients
remained in the soil. Seventy-one kg/ha (63 lb/ac) of commercial potash was supplied to
meet the requirement in the first year. In the second year, potash was supplied
completely by commercial nutrients (Table 5.14). Thus, this crop sequence was the least

efficient in the use of manure nutrient use.

72

Table 5.14 Nutrient use for an alfalfa hay/ alfalfa hay sequence using P-based manure

 

 

 

 

application
Phosphorus Balance
Year 1 Year 2
Crop sequence Alfalfa (hay) Alfalfa (hay)
Application method Broad cast
Yield goal 13.5 t/ha 13.5 t/ha
( 6 ton/acre) (6 ton lacre)
Volume of manure applied 102,000 Uha
(11,000 gallons/acre)
Land needed 77 ha
(191 acres)
Rate 0.61 ha/hr
(1.51 acre Ihr)
N P205 K20 Total N P205 K20 Total
Mmurenlysis kylooor. 1.2 1.3 2.3 .. .. ..
(mung!) (10) (ll) (19) -- - -
WWW kgl'n 127 134 232 .- ... .—
(his) (113) (120) (207) ~- -- .-
Q-OPNMW kgin 282 67 302 282 67 302
(Um) (252) (60) (270) (252) (60) (270)
Mm "mm m o 232 232 o 67 0
(him) (0) (60) (207) (0) (60) (0)
W fafifim kgfn 0 O 71 0 0 302
(Mr) (0) (0) (63) (0) (0) (270)
Residud "m kgfn 35 67 0 18 0 0
(him) (31) (60) (0) (16) (0) (0)
Mmure nun-i3]: W “a 67.06 71.11 71.65 209.83 -- -- -- ~-
(34:) (27.16) (28.80) (29.02) (84.98) - -- -- --
mmm 5,13 0.00 35.56 71.65 107.21 0.00 35.56 0.00 35.56
(St) (0.00) (14.40) (29.02) (43.42) (0.00) (14.40) (0.00) (14.40)
W fatilizer value 313 0.00 0.00 21.68 21.68 0.00 0.00 93.33 93.33
(34:) (0.00) (0.00) (8.78) (8.78) (0.00) (0.00) (37.80) (37.80)
Residual Nun-fin value Ska 18.42 35.56 0.00 53.98 9.21 0.00 0.00 9.21
44:) (7.46) ( 14.40) (0.00) (21.86) (3.73) (0.00) (0.00) (3.73)

 

73
5.3 Net Costs

Net costs represent machinery costs for agitating, pumping and hauling including
fuel and lubrication and labor minus the value of manure nutrients used for crop growth.
A comparison of net costs is shown in Tables 5.15 and 5.16 for hauling distances of 1.6,
4.8 and 8 km (1, 3 and 5 mile). When comparing manure applications to satisfy nitrogen
use in the first year of a two-year sequence or a two-year phosphorus balance, nitrogen
use resulted in a higher cost in all cases. This is because more manure was applied for
nitrogen use and more of these nutrients were lefi unused in the soil.

Among sequences, corn silage/com grain resulted in a higher cost with a nitrogen
use, and the alfalfa/alfalfa sequence resulted in a higher cost with the phosphorus
balance. These high costs were due to the higher relative machinery costs ($lha or $/ac)
for the corn silage/com grain sequence and because of high machinery costs and low
manure nutrient recovery for the alfalfa/alfalfa sequence. The differences across
machinery sets indicate that the V-tank spreader had the highest cost due to its high
purchase price.

The lowest cost overall was for the corn silage/corn grain sequence based on a
phosphorus balance at 1.6 km (1 mile) with irrigation on the 600-cow dairy. That is
consistent with corn being the lowest cost with a phosphorus balance and with irrigation
being the lowest cost over a short hauling distance. The overall highest cost was for the
V-tank spreader at 8 km (5 mile) on corn with manure applied for nitrogen use. This is
consistent with manure applications based on nitrogen use being high cost and the V-
tank being a high cost system coupled with the greatest transport distance. In general,

machinery costs increased rapidly with an increase in hauling distance. The truck-drawn

74
and the nurse truck systems were preferred when the hauling distance was greater than

4.8 km (3 mile).

The value of manure nutrients used, commercial nutrient costs and unused
residual nutrient values are shown in Tables 5.17 and 5.18. Unused residual manure
nutrients represent nutrients that could have been used elsewhere and when lying unused
in the soil represent a liability. Nitrogen use on corn provided the highest manure
nutrient value but resulted in the highest level of unused residual nutrients. This is
because the uptake ratio of nitrogen to phosphate or potash for corn was considerably
different from the available nutrient ratio in manure, resulting in an excess application of
phosphate to meet crop needs.

Among sequences, the corn silage/com grain sequence under both application
objectives had the highest value because corn nitrogen requirements were high relative to
other crops, and corn silage effectively used high levels of nitrogen, phosphate and
potash. The differences in commercial fertilizer cost and residual nutrient value between
the irrigation and drag hose systems was because of the improved nutrient recovery of
nitrogen when injected with the drag hose compared to surface applications with

irrigation.

75

 

 

--- 3.3 8.. ..1. Sam 36 -1. we. 2. ms... _ 8%
--.. 5.2. $3. -1 no.3 n2. --- 3.2.. 8.3 «5» 9.8: men
--- 36m mug- -1 3.3“ and- -1. 8.3 34:- 8%
..-- «new 3.3. .1 dew nmdm- ... $.th SN? 25 5:835
3.» 2.6 and RA: 8.» 3.» 3.3. 3.3 mmdm 8% .
«flan #602 3.2 awn 3.2 3.2 2. S. as.» was» «Em 8.82% 53 6.25 82:2
8.3 Ed 86. 26.3 and ans- 2.3. 8.3” 8.7 8%
”Nan 3.2 ohmm- 3.8 3.2 NN.» _- 8.3— «5.: 3.9- 95 832% $263.25.
2 do 9.3 e _ s 3.3 8.3. on.» 363 3.3: 33m 8%
3.5mm mod: 3.: 362 85 2 3.8 3.3m Nvdmm 2.8 25 832% 552?..385
=82...er 33198
3.9 3.2 8.? h _ . _ v 5.2 NA: enam— 369 Ena— 8%
3.x: 3.: mod. 3.;— hmdv and 86cm N23— nmdv «Em 832% x3 .5 cnm
3.8— 3.5 n :m 2.8— Sdn ondm 3.an 3.2.— 3.3 8%
modem mgn _ 3.2. ~9va n .63 3.2. N035 029 $63 95 8.82% 628$ 3w coo.~
_ ..ww Nada 3. _~ and» on. _ m vmdm 2.6mm :33 and. 8%
ems—N 56m _ 33m nmd—N 3am— Sém $63 353 3.x». 95 832% x5. Em 82”
.3322... 33.92
_Em En El _Em EM 2: En EM 2.:-
.5. a Ex ad Ex 9. .5. a .5. «6 .5— 9. Ex a .5. «.9 .5. @— mEoumbo. $5225
52w Ecoboon 8w=m 52w 50253 82$» 52» E883? EoU

 

80.38% wanna: Ame—m8 m 28 m .3 E w 28 new .—
8 om: nowohm: no women macaw—one 38.8w Ea -ofl .8.“ 88m: «85:: 2:58 we 33> 338 88 bochmEv 88 82 m _ .m 838,—.

76

 

 

-- No.3 mvd. -- «ad. ad. -- 36. 8...” -- NWNN 8N7 8%
-- mm...” . no.5 -- 3.3.. an..- -- 3. .v 8.5 -- 8am abdu- a..\m 88... ma...

-- San m~.- -- «Won .3..- -- .....am 2&- -- «....N madm- 8%
-- ...-...m. .m.n- -- .wdn enam- -- ...m... endu- -- mmfim mean- a...» .833...

.3... 3......“ 36m RN 3.... 3.... v0. . .md .md «to .....N- Qum- 8.»
3.2 2.2. 2.2. $6 .N.. .N.. 3.3 8.3 3.9 3.. 36- 36- 8.5 832% ....B .2... 02:2

mmdm «....N 26 Na... 8...- 8.m.- mmém an... ....e- Nb..m 3...- vw.nm- 8.”
exam . med... mad. and... .3. .- c..mm- 8.3 .Na. hm...- mcfim om...- omac- 8.5 832% :BEv-xoa...

and: 3.3 m...m 3.: .5..“ S... 3.3 3.: who 3.8. 2......»- m..- 8R
3.8.. vhmmm 3.2. 8.3. 2.? 2d madam 3.8. ......N mvdom .m.mm. 2.6. 85» 832% 32.7.5.8...
. 5.88.... Boo-:8

8.3 2.9. .o.» 3%. ...... and- a . . . m 3.3. S...- v..om 2.6. n . .2- 8R
was... 3.2. «5.... no.3 ca... a. .8. 3.... undo ans- 9.3. 36 «ms..- aEa 832% ...... .... can

made. 8.8. 3.3 5.2. 3.3. «...... 3.8. ....on ...-...... 3N2 2.3 mad. 8%
o3...V 363 ......N. .2... 3:8. and.“ ......mu 9.5.. ....cw mmdmm .v..m. $6.. 8.5 832% U..8.-> .8 8o.~

S. . n. «N3 «5% ”use n53 5.2 cm...» when Eda .v.~. . NeNo an”. 8.»
v03...” Edvm ....cm. 8.3. 3.3 ......m awomm 2.2.. .03 whim No.3 . «09. 8.5 832% v...a. .8 can...”
5.58.... Boo-cm.

.... m .... m .E. .... m .E m .E. .... n .... m .E. .... n .... m .E.
.5. w .5. a... .5. e. .5. a .5. a... .5. e. .5. a .5. a... .5. e. .5. a .5. a... .5. .... 2.88% Q5280
8:583:82 ......» E832. .85 59% E8. ...Ew 82.3 ......» E883... Eco

 

8288..U w....8.. $2.... m ...... m ... .5. w 38 w... .. 8
85...... 3.9.5.0.... a ......» 8328.... Boo-coo ...... -02 5.. 68.. 28.5.... 8.5.8... ..o 2...? 3...... 8.8 .8385. 88 87. 0.6 0.8...

77
The alfalfa/ alfalfa sequence had the highest commercial nutrient cost because of

its high potash requirement. The alfalfa/alfalfa sequence also included the application of
about $5 8/ha ($23/ac) of nitrogen that could not be used by the crop and was lost to the
environment. The wheat grain/com grain and the sugar beet/com grain sequences based
on nitrogen use did not have high manure nutrient benefits, but crop nutrient
requirements were better balanced with manure nutrient composition, and residual
nutrient costs were low. All sequences required commercial nitrogen applications in the
second year.

Finally, the net of machinery, commercial fertilizer cost and residual nutrient cost
minus the value of manure nutrients used is shown in Table 5.19 to integrate the
machinery costs and nutrient values. Between the nitrogen use and phosphorus balance
schemes, a phosphorus balance had lower net costs because of lower machinery ($/ha or
$/ac) and commercial fertilizer costs and a lower residual nutrient value. Among crop
sequences, the corn silage/com grain sequence had the lowest cost. Among size of
operations the costs for thelSO-cow operation were generally higher than the 600-cow
operation but not in all cases. For example, the net cost for the ISO-cow operation with
the box spreader was lower than the costs for the 600-cow operation with the tractor-
drawn or the nurse truck at 1.6 km (lmile). Among operating systems, irrigation had
lowest cost on the 600-cow farm when the distance was shorter than 4.8 km (3 mile). At
4.8 km (3 mile), the truck-drawn system had the lowest cost. When the distance was

greater than 4.8 km (3 mile), the nurse truck system had the lowest cost.

78

Table 5.17 Value of manure nutrients used, commercial nutrients purchased and residual
nutrient value when manure was applied for nitrogen use in year one of a

 

 

two-year sequence.
Corn Wheat Sugar
Operating systems silage/com grain/com beet/com Alfalfa/alfalfa
grain grain grain
Manure nutrient applied
$/ha 582.00 223.00 235.00 «-
$/ac 236.00 90.00 95.00 «-
Value of manure nutrients used by crop
Tank spreader and S/ha 274.69 118.72 134.74 ---
nurse tanks $/ac 111.25 48.08 54.57 ---
V-tank spreader $lha 274.89 120.47 52.57 «-
$/ac 1 l 1.33 48.79 52.60 ---
Box spreader S/ha 273.19 119.83 129.21 «-
$/ac 1 10.64 48.53 52.33 «-
Irrigation $/ha 275.28 120.64 130.05 ---
S/ac 1 1 1.49 48.86 52.67 ---
Drag Hose $/ha 271.83 119.31 128.67 ---
$/ac 1 10.09 48.32 52.11 ---
Commercial Nutrients costs
Tank spreader and $/ha 33.41 53.98 51.63 ---
nurse tanks $/ac 13.53 21.86 20.91 ---
V-tank spreader $/ha 33.21 52.20 51.56 «-
S/ac 13.45 21.14 20.88 ---
Box spreader $lha 34.89 52.86 52.22 ---
$/ac 14.13 21.41 21.15 «-
Irrigation $/ha 32.79 52.05 51.38 ---
S/ac 13.28 21.08 20.81 «-
Drag Hose S/ha 36.25 53.38 52.79 «-
$/ac 14.68 21.62 21.38 ---
Residual Nutrients value
Tank spreader and S/ha 119.75 32.37 29.65 «-
nurse tanks S/ac 48.50 13.11 12.01 ---
V-tank spreader $/ha 127.11 33.48 32.62 «-
$/ac 51.48 13.56 13.21 «-
Box spreader $/ha 161.38 46.59 46.47 ---
$/ac 65.36 18.87 18.82 ---
Irrigation $/ha 142.94 39.56 39.01 ---
$/ac 57.89 16.02 15.80 ---
Drag Hose $/ha 112.44 27.85 26.69 ---
$/ac 45.54 1 1.28 10.81 ---

 

79

Table 5.18 Value of manure nutrients used, commercial nutrients purchased and residual
nutrient value when manure was applied for a phosphorus balance with two-
year sequences.

 

 

Operating . Com Wheat Sugar
systems Silage/corn gram/com beet/com Alfalfa/alfalfa
gram gram gram
Manure nutrient applied
$/ha 311.00 201.00 169.00 304.00
S/ac 126.00 81.00 69.00 123.00
Value of manure nutrients used by the crop
Tank spreader S/ha 213.90 120.84 119.93 142.77
and nurse tanks $/ac 86.63 48.94 48.57 57.82
V-tank spreader $/ha 209.53 119.56 117.51 139.43
$/ac 84.86 48.42 47.59 56.47
Box spreader S/ha 197.48 111.93 111.06 138.35
$/ac 79.98 45.33 44.98 56.03
Irrigation $/ha 196.15 1 14.27 1 13.04 133.33
S/ac 79.44 46.28 45.78 54.00
Drag Hose $/ha 202.89 118.96 116.99 133.33
$/ac 82.17 48.18 47.38 54.00
Commercial Nutrients cost
Tank spreader $/ha 94.17 51.85 61.51 115.01
and nurse tanks $/ac 38.14 21.00 24.91 46.58
V-tank spreader $/ha 98.54 53.11 63.95 118.35
$/ac 39.91 21.51 25.90 47.93
Box spreader $/ha 110.59 60.77 70.40 119.43
$/ac 44.79 24.61 28.51 48.37
Irrigation $/ha 1 1 1.95 58.40 68.40 124.44
$/ac 45.34 23.65 27.70 50.40
Drag Hose $/ha 105.19 53.70 64.44 124.44
$/ac 42.60 21.75 26.10 50.40
Residual Nutrients value
Tank spreader $/ha 11.70 34.30 12.07 9.21
and nurse tanks $/ac 4.74 13.89 4.89 3.73
V-tank spreader $/ha 8.35 31.80 9.98 8.79
$/ac 3.38 12.88 4.04 3.56
Box spreader $/ha 6.84 30.05 8.49 7.21
$/ac 2.77 12.17 3.44 2.92
Irrigation $/ha 7.60 27.26 6.15 8.00
$/ac 3.08 1 1.04 2.49 3.24
Drag Hose $lha 7.60 27.26 6.15 8.00
$/ac 3.08 1 1.04 2.49 3.24

 

80

 

 

-- ow. . n. m... .o. -- mod. . 3.8 -- .adm. Damn -- ocda v. .3 H$38% 38: MEG
-- 3.3.. pm. ... -- 36m. 5. . v -- 3.2”. 3. .c l. 8.3. h . KN S-38% .8332.
. ..S. 2.8. 3.8. 3.? £23 emdo nmdw ..wa mud» «can Qumm mhdm 3-38% 332% 5.3 v.25 8.57.
36m. 5.3 no. ... 3.3. .13 5.»... 3.2. «NS 3.3 and” aficm maNu ...-38% 332% :32.3.0.2...
nmfinm mad: ...-.8. madmm 3.2V. 3.2. $.va 5...: ......” Nada .wdu. .eén $.38% 332% :32v-332h
3.33.... 38.98
«adv. 2... .. 3.3. 3.3. and» 3.3 2.»... Emma . 3.3 5.. .. .3... ma. .v 5-38% 332% x2. =.. can
.adwm 3.8m 8.9” . 3.me 3.3. 3.3 ....ch «NS. 3.2. omdmm 9.2. 3.3 3-38% 332% 35 .3 8°.N
.man 3.8. E. .m . em.m- when . 3.3 36mm .52.. chm . . 2..ch R. .v. 8.3 h3.38% 332% xcfi .3 com...-
aezflono 38.9m—
oo:¢.2. 2:393...—
-- -- -- -- 8.8. 3.3 -- 3.3. 3.2. -- 36.. 3.3 h3.38% 80: wan.
-- -- -- -- c . 6N. 3.3 1- .m.mm. Gan -- med. . .mdm 338% 833:.
-- -.- -- at? am. ... om. ... 3.8 8.3 8.3 3.3 8.3 3.2. 3-38% 332% 5.3 x25 8.32
-- -- -- 8.3. made 3.3. and: 2.3 x. .mm ems... .5.... 3.9 3-38% 332% =32?on...
-- -- -- 2.63 v2.3 92.. $.an 3.8. 3.3 Sag .....cn . mndh 3-38% 332% 32.0-33.3...
3.2.3.... 38.25
-.- -- -- 86m . 2&3 omde 3. .v. 3.8. on... 2...? . 3.3 3.3 2.5-38% 332% x3 .5 can
-- -- -- «gem 2.2.. m ..cm. mvdom 3.3. ....om. :63.- ...m... and: 3-38% 332% ...—:85 .3 o8.~
-- -- -- emdmm Emma . 3.3 3.3m 8.2.. ...-v.3. ..cdmm mmfie. 8.8. 3-38% 332% x23 .5m com...”
.3522... 38.3.
8: 33.5.7.
.En .Em .E. .Em .Em .8. .En .Em .8. .En .Em .E.
.5. w Eu. a... EU. 9. .5. a .5. a... Ex 9. .5. a F5. «4. Eu. 0.. Eu. a Eu. a... .5. 9. 3.82%.? 9.3.2.0

2.3.33.3..2

59% E832. 3m=m

52w E823 32.3

3..» E833...“ E00

3.5% 3.3.2 ...-2.8 m Ea m .s .5. w 2a 3. ._ a? 88225 38

.80 .63 .3. 3.. 3%: $3.52. 2288 ..o 23> 35 358 $3.52. .9632 33 .3353. 3338.28 53:...an ..o 32 3% 33m...

Chapter 6

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed machinery and nutrient management model provides a tool to

evaluate costs and labor requirements for manure transportation and nutrient use in

manure application.

1.

On the 600-cow farm, irrigation was the lowest cost system when the
transport distance was 1.6 km (1 mile) or less, the truck-drawn spreaders were
the lowest for distances between 1.6 km (1 mile) and 4.8 km (3 mile), and the
nurse truck with spreader tank system was the lowest for distances greater
than 4.8 km (3 mile).

Pipeline system costs increased rapidly beyond 2 km (1.25 mile) for irrigation,
and 3.2 km (2 mile) for the drag hose system as additional tractor power units

were required to maintain system pressure.

. Applying manure for a phosphorus balance provided lower net costs than

applying for nitrogen use because of lower costs for commercial fertilizer and
lower residual nutrient costs. A com silage/corn grain rotation with manure
applied for a phosphorus balance provided the lowest net cost.

Wheat grain/com grain and sugar beet/corn grain rotations did not have great
manure nutrient benefit, but few residual nutrients were left unused in the soil
because the crop nutrient requirements closely matched the manure nutrients
available.

81

82
5. A 600-cow operation generally experienced lower net costs than a ISO-cow

operation.

These conclusions can be summarized as follows: 1) a corn rotation with N-based
manure application was the best crop on which to apply manure. 2) For short transport
distances, the box spreader or the truck-drawn spreader was economical on the smaller
farms. On larger farms, irrigation was the most economical for a distance of 1.6 km (1
mile) or less. For longer distances, the nurse truck system was the most economical. 3)
When the value of manure nutrients used and residual nutrients were considered, an
application based on a phosphorus balance was better than an application for nitrogen
use. 4) Costs for manure handling and land application were generally lower on larger

than on smaller farms, but there were examples where smaller farms had lower costs.

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

ASAE Standards, 44'“ Ed. l997a. 0497.1, Agricultural Machinery Management data. St.
Joseph MI: ASAE.

ASAE Standards, 44th Ed. 1997b. EP496.1, Agricultural Machinery management. St.
Joseph. MI: ASAE.

ASAE Standards, 44‘“ Ed. l997c. D384.l, Manure Production and Characteristics. St.
Joseph. MI: ASAE.

ASAE Standards, 44"I Ed. l997d. S466, Nomenclature/Terminology for Livestock
Waste/Manure Handling Equipment. St. Joseph. MI: ASAE.

ASAE Standards, 44‘” Ed. 1997c. 8292.5, Uniform Terminology for Rural Waste
Management. St. Joseph. MI: ASAE.

Bohn. P. and DB. Beegle. 1997. Farm Nutrient Management Planning Worksheet.

Department of Agronomy, Pennsylvania State University. University Park,
Pennsylvania.

Borton, L.R., C.A. Rotz, H.L. Person, T.M. Harrigan and W.G. Bickert. 1995.

Simulation to evaluate dairy manure systems. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 11(2):
30 l -310.

Bosch. DJ. and KB. Napit. 1992. Economics of transporting poultry litter to achieve

more effective use as fertilizer. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation Quality 47(4):
324-346.

Bowers. W. 1992. Machinery Management. Moline, IL. Deere &. Company service
publications

Burney, J.R., K.V. Lo and W.M. Carson. 1980. Dairy waste management system
selection by network analysis. Canadian Agricultural Engineering 22(1): 41-47.

Christenson, D., D. Wamcke, M.L. Vitosh, L.W. Jacobs, and J.G. Dahl. 1992. Fertilizer

Recommendations for Field Crops in Michigan. E-SOOA. Cooperative Extension Service,
East Lansing, Michigan.

ChriStenson, D. 1997. Personal communication. Agronomy specialist. Department of
crop and soil sciences. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

83

84

Cross T.L. and G.M.Perry. 1996. Remaining value function for farm equipment. Applied
Engineering in Agriculture 12(5): 547-553.

Cuenca, RH. 1989. Irrigation System Design: An engineering approach. Prentice Hill
Inc Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Glover T.1996. Livestock Manure: Foe or Fertilizer? Agricultural Outlook. June 1996.
pp.30 - 35

Goodrich PR 1994. Manure Application Using a Towed Hose Injector. In: Liquid
manure Application Systems. Proceedings from the Liquid Manure Application Systems
Conference, Rochester, NY, December 1994

Harrigan T.M., W.G. Bickert and CA. Rotz. 1996. Simulation of dairy manure
management and cropping systems. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 12(5): 563-574.

Harrigan.T.M. I997. Manure Hauling rate of spreader tank systems. Applied Engineering
in Agriculture 13(4), 465-472.

Hauck, RD. 1995. Perspective on Alternative Waste Utilization Strategies. In: Animal
Waste and the Land-Water Interface. pp.463-474. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.

Hunt D. 1995. Farm Power and Machinery Management 9th Edition. Iowa Sate
University press, Ames, Iowa

J okela, B. and J. Rankin. 1995. Vermont Manure Nutrient Management Instructions.
Plant and Soil Science Department. University of Vermont. Burlington, Vermont.

Jones, DD. and Sutton, A.L. 1994. Treatment Options for Liquid Manure. pp.29-40. In:
L iquid Manure Application Systems Design, Management and Environmental
Assessment, NRAES-79. Northwest Regional Agricultural Engineering Service, Cornell
University., Ithaca, NY.

Jones, ME. 1997. Personal communication. Cropping systems agronomist.. Department
Of Crop and Soil Sciences. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Klausner, S. 1995. Nutrient Management Planning. In: Animal Waste and the Land-
Water Interface. pp.383-392. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.

LeCureux, J. 1997. Personal communication. Extension agent. Michigan State
UniVersity, East Lansing Michigan.

Léep, R. 1997. Personal communication. Agronomist. Department of crop and soil
Sclences. Michigan State University, East Lansing Michigan.

85

Letson D. and N.Gollehon 1996. Confined Animal production and the manure problem.
pp.l8 - 24CHOICE Third Quarter 1996.

MacKellar, B.A., L.W. Jacobs and S. Bohm. 1996. User’s Manual for Michigan State
University Nutrient Management. Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station and MSU

Extension, East Lansing, Michigan.

McCaskey, T.A. 1995. Feeding Broiler Poultry litter as an Alternative Waste
Management Strategy. pp.493-502. In: Animal Waste and the Land-Water Interface.

Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.

Michigan Agricultural Commission. 1992. Generally Accepted Agricultural Practice for
Manure Management and Utilization. Michigan Agricultural Commission. Lansing:

Michigan.
Michigan Agricultural Statistic Service. 1997. Michigan Ag Statistics. [Online]Available
http:// www.mda.state.mi.us/mass/stats/estimate, August 19, 1997

Midwest Plan Service (MWPS). 1985 2nd Ed. MWPS-l8, Livestock Waste Facilities
Handbook. Ames, Iowa: Midwest Plan Service, Iowa State University

National Research Council. 1993. Soil and Water: An Agenda for Agriculture. National
Academy of Sciences, Washington DC.

NDSU. 1985. Estimating Farm Machinery Costs. EC-883. North Dakota State University
Cooperative Extension Service, Fargo, North Dakota

PAMI. 1997. A Guide to Pipeline Manure Injection Systems. PAMI-729. Prairie
Agricultural Machinery Institute, Humboldt, Saskatchewan, Canada.

Phillips, P.A.. 1980. Manure handling case study of a ISO-cow Ottawa Valley dairy
farm. pp.384-386. In livestock waste: A Renewable Resource. Proceeding from 4"I
International Symposium on Livestock Wastes. St. Joseph, MI: ASAE

Rotz C.A. , H.A. Muhtar and JR. Black. 1983. A Multiple Crop Machinery Selection
Algorithm. Transaction of the ASAE 26(3): 1644-1649.

Safley L.M.Jr. 1994. Best management practices for livestock production. Journal of Soil
and Water Conservation. vol 49 March/April: 57-62.

Siemens J, K Hambrug and T. Tyrrell. 1990. A Farm Machinery Selection and
Management Program. J. Prod. Agric. 3(2): 212-219.

Sims J.T. and Wolf. DC. 1994. Poultry waste management: agricultural and
environmental issues. Advances in agronomy. 52. pp.l-83.

86

Sutton. A.L. 1994. Proper animal manure utilization. Journal of Soil and Water
conservation. 49 March/April

Sweeten, J .M and D.L. Reddell. 1979. Time-motion analysis of feedlot manure collection
systems. Transactions of the ASAE 22(1): 138-143.

Thompson, R.B., D. Morse, K.A. Kelling, and LE. Lanyon. 1997. Computer programs
that calculate manure application rates. J. Prod. Agric. 10:58-69.

University of Minnesota. 1997. Manure Application Planner. [Online] Available
http://www.ctfm.umn.edu/cffin/map.htm, April 1997.

USDA. 1992. Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook. United States
Government Printing Office, Washington DC.

USDA. 1997. Agricultural Statistics. United States Government Printing Office.
Washington DC.

USDA, Economic Research Service. 1996. Agriculture and Water Quality. [Online]
Available http://www.econ.ag.gov, October 1996.

US. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Guidance Specifying Management
Measures for Source of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. [Online] Available
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/MMGI, January 1997

Ward, R. 1997. Personal communication. Wheat specialist. Department of Crop and Soil
Sciences. Michigan State University, East Lansing Michigan.

Westenbarger D.A. and D.Letson. 1995. Livestock and poultry waste-control costs.
CHOICES Second Quarter. 27-30.

Welty D.L., A.L. Sutton, D.D. Jones, J.C. Nye and KL. Vetter. 1986. Labor, Equipment
and energy requirements for handling swine and dairy manure with an above-ground
storage system. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 2(2): l99-205.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A

 

Loading [j

Road to storage

U

Return traveling

Field to road I c:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure A.1 Hauling cycle of series operation

87

 

Storage to road

 

 

 

ll

 

Traveling

 

 

 

fl

 

l Road to field

 

 

fl

 

Spreading

 

 

 

88

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Loading Storage to road
Road to storage Travelmg Nurse I ck
U B 9”“
Return traveling Nurse field
maneuvering

 

 

 

 

 

 

ll

Tractor/Nurse ]

maneuvering

[ Hook up time J

1 59—91::

rea
[ Spreading time J [ Transfer ] M

1

Road to Field J

 

flr—Hil

 

 

[ Field to road

 

up

 

 

 

 

 

ran

 

Figure A.2 Spreader tank and equal size nurse tank with a operator system.

89

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Loading
Road to storage Storage to road
mm
‘0 u ....
I Return traveling Traveling
Nurse field

 

 

 

 

maneuvering ‘

Tractor/Nurse Field to Tractor/Nurse
maneuvering road maneuvering

[1]
[222:2 ] [2222222]
I ]

 

 

 

 

 

Field to
road

l
[ 22:22:22]
l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

{-

   

 

 

 

 

Figure A.3 Hauling cycle of spreader tank and double capacity of nurse truck operation
with one operator.

90

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Loading I:> Storage to road
Road to storage Traveling
Nurse truck cycle
Return traveling Nurse field
maneuvering

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ce.

 

Hook up time <9

 

 

 

f’

 

I

 

[ Field to road ] [

I

 

Transfer ]

I

 

[ Spreading time J h[

Road to Field ]

reader tank cle

 

Figure A.4 Hauling cycle of spreader tank and
with two operators.

equal size of two nurse truck operation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Loading [:> Storage to road
meme:
.... 13‘ £1.
Road to storage Traveling
Return traveling Nurse field
maneuvering

 

 

 

 

 

 

U

 

Hook up time <9
Field to Transfer Field to Transfer
road road

I

Spreading . Road to Spreading _ Road to
time Field time ' Field

eader tank c cle

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

Figure A.5 Hauling cycle of a spreader tank and double capacity of two nurse trucks
operation with 3 operators.

92

 

 

 

 

Loading I:> Storage to road

 

 

 

 

U Il

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Road to storage Traveling
mm
“LC .1. ‘U 3
Return traveling Nurse field
maneuvermg
I Hook up time

 

 

 

I

Tractor/Nurse Road to
maneuvering Field

I I

L w
I

 

 

 

 

 

Field to Spreading
[ road ]h[ time ]

Spreader tank cycle

Figure A.6 Hauling cycle of a spreader tank and equal tank capacity of two nurse trucks

operation with three operators

 

 

93
Loading I d Storage to road

I B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Road to storage Traveling
Nur c
9”“ TI Il
Return traveling Nurse field
maneuvering
Hook up time

 

 

 

 

[ ...... J<fl
I" 1 t 5

. Tractor/Nurse Road to Tractor/Nurse Road to
maneuvering Field maneuvering Field

I I I

 

 

 

 

 

 

I

Field to Spreading Field to Spreading
( road ] h time ] [ road ] h [ time

aer l

 

 

 

 

Figure A.7 Hauling cycle of a spreader tank and double capacity of two nurse truck 5
operation with three operators.

"11111111111111111“