Evaluation of Silage Leachate and Runoff Collection Systems on Three Wisconsin Dairy Farms
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Evaluation of Silage Leachate and Runoff Collection Systems on Three Wisconsin Dairy Farms Aaron Wunderlin1, Eric Cooley1, Becky Larson2, Callie Herron1, Dennis Frame1, Amber Radatz1, Kevan Klingberg1, Tim Radatz1 and Michael Holly2 1University of Wisconsin – Discovery Farms® Program 2University of Wisconsin – Biological Systems Engineering Department 4/11/2016 (Revised 5/31/16) Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 2 2. Material and methods ................................................................................................................ 7 2.1. Study design and implementation .................................................................................... 7 2.2. Site descriptions ................................................................................................................ 8 2.2.1. Farm A leachate collection system .......................................................................... 8 2.2.2. Farm B leachate collection system ........................................................................ 10 2.2.3. Farm C Leachate collection system ........................................................................ 13 2.3. Instrumentation .............................................................................................................. 15 2.3.1. Monitoring stations ................................................................................................ 15 2.3.2. Farm A .................................................................................................................... 16 2.3.3. Farm B .................................................................................................................... 20 2.3.4. Farm C .................................................................................................................... 23 2.3.5. Real-time conductivity probe installation at Farms A and B .................................. 25 2.4. Sample collection and analysis ........................................................................................ 26 2.5. Feed storage data ........................................................................................................... 30 2.6. Calculations and statistics ............................................................................................... 32 3. Results ....................................................................................................................................... 33 3.1. Precipitation, runoff and sampling ................................................................................. 33 3.2. Runoff concentrations .................................................................................................... 36 3.3. Event and annual nutrient loading ................................................................................. 39 3.4. Annual nutrient yield ...................................................................................................... 41 3.5. Nutrient speciation ......................................................................................................... 43 4. Discussion - Considerations for runoff collection .................................................................... 44 4.1. First flush ......................................................................................................................... 44 4.2. Concentration versus flow ............................................................................................... 47 4.3. Correlation of monitored parameters ............................................................................ 48 4.4. Alternative leachate collection system design comparison ............................................ 50 4.5. Conductivity modeling of alternative system designs .................................................... 51 4.6. Statistical significance of factors influencing runoff concentration ................................ 53 4.7. Influence of seasonality, forage ensiling and rain volume on runoff concentrations .... 53 5. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 62 Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... 63 References .................................................................................................................................... 64 Appendix ...................................................................................................................................... 66 Appendix A. Kruskal-Wallis analysis ........................................................................................ 66 Appendix B. Dunn’s pairwise comparison .............................................................................. 69 Appendix C. Event flow weighted concentrations .................................................................. 76 Appendix D. Mass-volume curves for COD, TDP, and ammonia ............................................ 93 Abstract As farm enterprises have grown and farming systems have changed, an increasing number of Wisconsin livestock producers are using bunker silos, stacking pads, silo bags and commodity storage sheds more extensively. These storage facilities can allow for rapid harvest, increased flexibility and improved performance of ensiled materials; but concerns have arisen regarding water quality. The potential of high concentration flow moving from these storage facilities to waters of the state needs to be evaluated. Current silage runoff collection systems are designed based on the “first flush” concept used in the urban setting regarding pollutants in storm water runoff. Identified in urban research, first flush events are events where a majority of the contaminants are transported in the initial runoff volume. Subsequent to initial first flush collection, flow from feed storage facilities is sent to a secondary treatment, which is often a vegetated treatment area (VTA). Treatment of all water from feed storage facilities is required up to 25% of the 25-year, 24-hour storm design established in Natural Resources Conservation Service Conservation Practice Standard Code 629, Waste Treatment. This research evaluated silage leachate system performance on three private farms in Wisconsin from 2012 to 2014. The concentration and loading of sampled constituents from events to both collection systems and overflow to vegetated treatment areas was evaluated. Minimal leachate was observed. Only events associated with precipitation were large enough to initiate sampling. This study found that concentrations of monitored constituents were negatively correlated to flow, thus loading throughout runoff events was relatively consistent in respect to flow. Therefore, alternative system designs to collect low flow in comparison to first flush will increase the collection system loading efficiency. 1 1.0 Introduction Over the past twenty years, Wisconsin has seen tremendous changes in the harvesting and storage of feed for ruminant livestock. As dairy farm expansion continues, the number of operations adopting farming systems that allow for the rapid harvest and proper storage of large quantities of feed continues to increase. This shift in feed storage has produced a move away from the typical upright silage storage facilities (silos) to horizontal storage facilities (bunkers, piles, or bags). The use of horizontal silage storage facilities can increase the speed of harvest and provide high quality feed when properly managed. Ensiling feed preserves it for long term storage through fermentation. Crops are harvested and packed into bunkers by repeatedly driving over them with heavy machinery as feed is added. The compression of the feed allows more to be stored per area and reduces the amount of air within the feed. Once a bunker is full, it is covered and sealed to prevent air from entering, and the ensiling process begins. There are four stages to this process: aerobic, fermentation, stable, and feed-out. Aerobic microbial activity will occur until the oxygen in the feed is used up. During this process, water is released and nutrients are lost. Once oxygen is used up, conditions become anaerobic and fermentation begins. Fermentation reduces the pH (lactic acid) so that only the desired microbes (bacteria) can function. When all of the sugars in the feed are used up, microbial activity is minimal and the feed becomes stable and is preserved as long as air is not reintroduced. When it is time to feed the livestock, the bunkers are opened up for access to the silage and the feed-out phase begins. During this time, microbial activity is reactivated and spoilage will occur if the feed-out rate is less than the spoilage rate. Silage leachate is the liquid produced in feed storage facilities from compaction and ensilage of harvested crops and is not unique to horizontal storage facilities. Crops (typically corn or hay in Wisconsin) harvested at high moisture levels can produce leachate in any storage facility. Leachate has the potential to be a significant pollutant due to its nutrient content and high Table 1: Typical constituent concentrations