Water Balance of a Feedlot
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Water Balance of a Feedlot A Thesis Submitted to the College of Graduate Studies In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in the Department of Agricultural and Bioresource Engineering University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, SK By Lisa N. White February 2006 © Copyright Lisa Nicole White, 2006. All rights reserved. PERMISSION TO USE In presenting this thesis as partial fulfillment of a Postgraduate degree at the University of Saskatchewan, the author has agreed that the Libraries of the University of Saskatchewan, may make this thesis freely available for inspection. Moreover, the author has agreed that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the professor or professors who supervised my thesis work recorded herein, or in absence, by the head of the Department or the Dean of the College in which my thesis was done. It is understood that due recognition will be given to the author of this thesis and to the University of Saskatchewan in any use of the material in this thesis. Copying or publication or any other use of my thesis for financial gain without written approval of the author and the University of Saskatchewan is prohibited. Requests for permission to copy or make any other use of the material in this thesis, in whole or in part, should be addressed to: Head of Department Agricultural and Bioresource Engineering University of Saskatchewan 57 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK Canada, S7N 5A9 i ABSTRACT The overall purpose of this study was to define the water balance of feedlot pens in a Saskatchewan cattle feeding operation for a one year period. Although the initial intention of the study was focused upon an active feedlot, cattle were removed from the pens in July 2003. Therefore, the year of analysis was conducted on the manured surface of an inactive feedlot. The water balance was also performed on a scraped soil surface, since manure is removed from the pens and spread on agricultural land, leaving the pen surfaces bare for a short period of time each year. During the monitoring period (Sept. 2003 to Aug. 2004), 313 mm of precipitation was received at the feedlot, but only 84 mm of that total was received before June 2004. Winter precipitation was very low (33 mm) and there was no observed runoff from it. Runoff collection weirs in operation for only part of the summer recorded no runoff. The Green-Ampt and USDA SCS runoff models, as well as a snowmelt runoff equation, were used to predict runoff from both the manure pack, as well as the scraped soil surface. Using manure and soil hydraulic parameters determined in the laboratory (from falling head permeameter measurements) and the field (from rainfall simulations), as well as incorporating the greatest 24 hour rainfall amounts and 30 minute intensities experienced at the feedlot, the USDA model found that 29 mm of runoff would occur from the scraped soil surface. Additionally, snowmelt runoff was estimated to be 19 mm for the winter precipitation received. Drainage beneath the 0.6 m soil depth was negligible and the top 0.6 m of soil experienced an increase in moisture of 54 mm. Finally, 211 mm was lost as evaporation. For the manure pack, no runoff was predicted using the Green-Ampt and USDA SCS models and snowmelt runoff equation, which corresponded well to the lack of runoff measured both from the weir and rainfall simulations. Drainage beneath 0.6 m soil depth was negligible. Of the 313 mm of precipitation that fell during the study year, 42 mm was stored within the manure pack and the rest was lost as evaporation (271 mm). ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The support and guidance of my academic supervisors, Dr. Charles Maule and Dr. Terry Fonstad, and the rest of my advisory committee, Dr. Lope Tabil and Dr. Jane Elliot, is greatly appreciated. Technical assistance provided by Michael Miller, Louis Roth, Randy Lorenz, and Wayne Morley is also very much valued. Funding for this project is provided by Saskatchewan Agriculture Development Fund. The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration is acknowledged for drilling and installation of piezometers, drill log interpretation and geotechnical laboratory analysis of core samples. Personnel at the River Ridge Feedlot are thanked for access permission and project support. Marc White, Crystal Halliday, and Daryl Rinas are acknowledged for their field help. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS PERMISSION TO USE ........................................................................................ i ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................. vii LIST OF FIGURES ...............................................................................................ix 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 1 1.1. Purpose................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Relevance ............................................................................................... 1 1.3. Objectives ............................................................................................... 3 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................. 5 2.1. Water Balance......................................................................................... 5 2.1.1. Measured Actual Evaporation and Drainage................................ 7 2.1.2. Measured Drainage with Determination of Actual Evaporation by Difference ................................................................................ 7 2.1.3. Measured Actual Evaporation with Determination of Drainage by Difference ................................................................................ 8 2.2. Feedlot Pen Soil and Manure Characteristics......................................... 9 2.3. Infiltration and Runoff ............................................................................ 10 2.3.1. Introduction................................................................................. 10 2.3.2. Infiltration and Runoff Characteristics of Feedlots...................... 11 2.3.3. Infiltration Measurement Methods .............................................. 12 2.3.4. Runoff Measurement Methods ................................................... 16 2.3.5. Models for Estimation of Infiltration and Runoff.......................... 19 2.4. Drainage................................................................................................ 25 2.4.1. Introduction................................................................................. 25 2.4.2. Methods for Determination ......................................................... 25 2.4.3. Drainage Characteristics of Prairie Agricultural Fields and Feedlot Pens .............................................................................. 28 2.5. Moisture Input from Cattle..................................................................... 29 2.6. Actual Evaporation ................................................................................ 29 2.6.1. Introduction................................................................................. 29 2.6.2. Methods for Determination ......................................................... 30 2.6.3. Evaporation Characteristics of Feedlot Pens ............................. 31 2.7. Summary of a Water Balance of a Feedlot Pen.................................... 31 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS .................................................................... 32 3.1. Study Location and Description ............................................................ 32 3.2. Field Instrumentation and Sample Protocol .......................................... 35 3.2.1. Precipitation and Meteorological Data Measurement................. 35 3.2.2. Soil Sampling.............................................................................. 36 3.2.3. Manure Sampling ....................................................................... 38 3.2.4. Runoff Sampling and Measurement ........................................... 43 3.2.5. Infiltration Sampling and Measurement ...................................... 50 3.3. Laboratory Methods and Protocol ......................................................... 51 3.3.1. Particle Size Analysis of Soil Samples ....................................... 51 3.3.2. Organic Carbon and Total Carbon Content of Soil Samples...... 51 3.3.3. Bulk Density of Soil Samples...................................................... 52 3.3.4. Volumetric Moisture Content of Soil Samples ............................ 52 3.3.5. Moisture Retention Characteristics of Soil Samples................... 53 3.3.6. Bulk Density of Wet Manure Pack and Compacted Manure Layer of the Dry Manure Pack Samples .................................... 54 3.3.7. Volumetric Moisture Content of Wet Manure Pack Samples...... 55 3.3.8. Drainage Characteristics of Wet Manure Pack Samples............ 56 3.3.9. Volumetric Moisture Content of Granular Manure Layer of the Dry Manure Pack Samples .................................................. 56 3.3.10. Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity