DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 4 Agricultural Waste Characteristics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 4 Agricultural Waste Characteristics United States Department of Part 651 Agriculture Natural Agricultural Waste Management Field Resources Conservation Handbook Service Chapter 4 Agricultural Waste Characteristics (210–VI–AWMFH, March 2008) Chapter 4 Agricultural Waste Characteristics Part 651 Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Issued March 2008 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, re- prisal, or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a com- plaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795- 3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provid- er and employer. (210–VI–AWMFH, March 2008) Acknowledgments Chapter 4 was originally prepared and printed in 1992 under the direc- tion of James N. Krider (retired), national environmental engineer, Soil Conservation Service (SCS), now Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Washington, DC. James D. Rickman (retired), environmental en- gineer, NRCS, Fort Worth, Texas, provided day-to-day coordination in the development of the handbook. Authors for chapter 4 included Clyde Barth (retired), Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina; Timothy Powers (retired), environmental engineer, NRCS, Nashville, Tennessee; and James Rickman. This version was prepared under the direction of Noller Herbert, director, Conservation Engineering Division, NRCS, Washington, DC. Revisions to the chapter were provided by Donald Stettler (retired), environmental en- gineer, NRCS, Portland, Oregon; Charles Zuller, environmental engineer, West National Technology Support Center, Portland, Oregon; and Darren Hickman, environmental engineer, Central National Technology Support Center, Fort Worth, Texas. It was finalized under the guidance ofDarren Hickman, national environmental engineer, Conservation Engineering Division, Washington, DC. (210–VI–AWMFH, March 2008) 4–i Chapter 4 Agricultural Waste Characteristics Part 651 Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook 4–ii (210–VI–AWMFH, March 2008) Chapter 4 Agricultural Waste Characteristics Contents: 651.0400 Introduction 4–1 (a) Purpose and scope ...........................................................................................4–1 (b) Variations and ranges of data values .............................................................4–2 651.0401 Definitions of waste characterization terms 4–2 651.0402 Units of measure 4–8 651.0403 Animal waste characteristics 4–9 (a) “As excreted” manure ....................................................................................4–9 (b) Common management modifications ........................................................4–11 (c) Dairy ...............................................................................................................4–12 (d) Beef ................................................................................................................4–15 (e) Swine ..............................................................................................................4–17 (f) Poultry ...........................................................................................................4–19 (g) Veal .................................................................................................................4–22 (h) Sheep ..............................................................................................................4–22 (i) Horse ..............................................................................................................4–22 (j) Rabbit .............................................................................................................4–23 651.0404 Manure as transferred for utilization 4–23 651.0405 Other wastes 4–26 (a) Residential waste .........................................................................................4–26 (b) Food wastes and wastewater .....................................................................4–26 (c) Silage leachate ..............................................................................................4–29 651.0406 References 4–32 (210–VI–AWMFH, March 2008) 4–iii Chapter 4 Agricultural Waste Characteristics Part 651 Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Table 4–1 Definitions and descriptions of waste characterization 4–3 terms Table 4–2 Factors for determining nutrient equivalency 4–9 Table 4–3 Unit weights of common bedding materials 4–11 Table 4–4 Daily bedding requirements for dairy cattle 4–11 Table 4–5 Dairy manure characterization—as excreted 4–13 Table 4–6 Dairy water use for various operations 4–14 Table 4–7 Dairy waste characterization—milking center 4–14 Table 4–8 Beef waste characterization—as excreted 4–15 Table 4–9 Nitrogen content of cattle feedlot runoff 4–16 Table 4–10 Swine waste characterization—as excreted 4–17 Table 4–11 Poultry waste characterization—as excreted 4–19 Table 4–12 Veal waste characterization—as excreted 4–22 Table 4–13 Lamb waste characterization—as excreted 4–22 Table 4–14 Horse waste characterization—as excreted 4–22 Table 4–15 Rabbit waste characterization—as excreted 4–23 Table 4–16 Manure as transferred for utilization 4–24 Table 4–17 Human waste characterization—as excreted 4–26 Table 4–18 Residential waste characterization—household 4–26 wastewater Table 4–19 Municipal waste characterization—residential 4–27 Table 4–20 Dairy food processing waste characterization 4–27 Table 4–21 Dairy food waste characterization—processing 4–28 wastewater Table 4–22 Meat processing waste characterization—wastewater 4–28 4–iv (210–VI–AWMFH, March 2008) Chapter 4 Agricultural Waste Characteristics Part 651 Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Table 4–23 Meat processing waste characterization—wastewater 4–29 sludge Table 4–24 Vegetable processing waste characterization—waste- 4–29 water Table 4–25 Fruit and vegetable waste characterization—solid 4–30 waste Table 4–26 Typical range of nutrient concentrations in silage 4–31 leachate Table 4–27 Leachate production based on percent dry matter 4–31 of silage Figures Figure 4–1 Mass balance approach used for developing table 4–1 values for beef cattle, swine, and poultry (210–VI–AWMFH, March 2008) 4–v Chapter 4 Agricultural Waste Characteristics Of the total excreted solids, dry matter in urine typically 651.0400 Introduction contributes 10 to 20 percent of the volume. These equations allow an estimate of as excreted ma- nure characteristics relevant to a wide range of dietary (a) Purpose and scope options and animal performance levels commonly ob- served in commercial production. Considered are fac- Wastes and residues described in this chapter are of an tors related to the feed efficiency in animal performance organic nature and agricultural origin. Other by-products and to feed intake including crude protein, phospho- of nonagricultural origin that may be managed within the rus, and dry matter. A full presentation and description agricultural sector are also included. This chapter pro- of these equations is beyond the scope of this chapter. vides information for estimating characteristics of live- They are, however, available in the American Society of stock and poultry manure and other agricultural residu- Agricultural and Biological Engineers Standard D384.2. als. The information provided is useful for the planning See http://www.asabe.org/standards/index.html. and design of agricultural waste management system (AWMS) components including: For dairy and horses, regression analysis was performed • storage function components such as ponds and on large data sets to determine appropriate equations. tanks In a number of situations, consideration should be giv- • treatment function components such as lagoons en to using equations instead of the as excreted values and composting presented in the tables of this chapter. Typical or aver- • utilization function components such as land ap- age estimates of as excreted manure eventually become plication out-of-date due to changes in animal genetics, perfor- mance potential, feeding program strategies, and avail- The information may also be useful in formulating the able feeds. If the timeliness of the data presented in this environmental impact of manure and other agricultural chapter becomes problematic, consideration should be wastes. given to computing values using equations. Other situ- ations when use of equations should be considered are This chapter includes table values for the typical charac- when: teristics of manure as excreted by livestock and poultry • comprehensive nutrient management plans are based on typical diets and animal performance levels in being developed specific to a farm and its AWMS 2003. These typical values are most appropriate for use when: • data is available for a livestock or poultry opera- tion’s feeding program and animal performance • planning estimates are being made on a scale larger than a single farm such as county or regional esti- • a
Load more

Recommended publications
  • What Is Nonpoint Source Pollution?
    What is Nonpoint Source Pollution? Nonpoint Source Pollution, or people pollution, is a contamination of our ground water, waterways, and ocean that results from everyday activities such as fertilizing the lawn, walking pets, changing motor oil and littering. With each rainfall, pollutants generated by these activities are washed into storm drains that flow into our waterways and ocean. They also can soak into the ground contaminating the ground water below. Each one of us, whether we know it or not, contributes to nonpoint source pollution through our daily activities. As a result, nonpoint source pollution is the BIGGEST threat to many of our ponds, creeks, lakes, wells, streams, rivers and bays, our ground water and the ocean. The collective impact of nonpoint source pollution threatens aquatic and marine life, recreational water activities, the fishing industry, tourism and our precious drinking water resources. Ultimately, the cost becomes the burden of every New Jersey resident. But there's good news - in our everyday activities we can stop nonpoint source pollution and keep our environment clean. Simple changes in YOUR daily lifestyle can make a tremendous difference in the quality of New Jersey's water resources. Here are just a few ways you can reduce nonpoint source pollution. LITTER: Place litter, including cigarette butts and fast food containers, in trash receptacles. Never throw litter in streets or down storm drains. Recycle as much as possible. FERTILIZERS: Fertilizers contain nitrates and phosphates that, in abundance, cause blooms of algae that can lead to fish kills. Avoid the overuse of fertilizers and do not apply them before a heavy rainfall.
    [Show full text]
  • Litter Decomposition on Directly Revegetated Tailings at the Kidston Gold Mine, North Queensland, Australia1
    LITTER DECOMPOSITION ON DIRECTLY REVEGETATED TAILINGS AT THE KIDSTON GOLD MINE, NORTH QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA1 Andrew H. Grigg2 Abstract. An investigation of litter decomposition was undertaken at the Kidston Gold Mine in north Queensland, Australia with the aim of assessing the status of nutrient cycling capacity on a directly-revegetated tailings dam. Weight losses from leaf litter contained in litterbags placed in a 5-year old revegetated section of the dam were not significantly different from losses observed at two unmined reference sites over the 18 month study period, representing a rapid improvement in nutrient cycling capacity in the reconstructed ecosystem. However, fitted decay curves for each site predicted a slower decay constant and a longer litter half-life on the dam, which indicated that full pre-mining capability had not yet been achieved. Weight loss in the reconstructed system was most constrained by the low build-up of microbial biomass within the surface soil, which is expected to take at least 10 years to achieve pre-mining levels. In contrast, weight losses in the unmined sites appeared more related to the abundance of invertebrate fauna rather than microbial content. The results presented here of a developing system suggest that the importance of different factors affecting decomposition will reflect those that are most limiting over the course of ecosystem recovery. Additional Key Words: nutrient cycling, ecosystem recovery, microbial biomass, invertebrates. _____________________ 1Paper presented at the 2002 National Meeting of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation, Lexington KY, June 9-13, 2002. Published by ASMR, 3134 Montavesta Rd., Lexington, KY 40502.
    [Show full text]
  • ANIMAL AGRICULTURE: Waste Management Practices GAO/RCED-99-205
    United States General Accounting Office Report to the Honorable Tom Harkin, GAO Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate July 1999 ANIMAL AGRICULTURE Waste Management Practices GAO/RCED-99-205 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-282871 July 26, 1999 The Honorable Tom Harkin Ranking Minority Member Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry United States Senate Dear Senator Harkin: The production of livestock and poultry animals, also known as animal agriculture, is important to the economic well-being of the nation, producing $98.8 billion per year in farm revenue. This production also contributes to the viability of many rural communities and the sustainability of an adequate food supply for the American public. However, concern over pollution resulting from intensive livestock and poultry production—in which large numbers of animals are held in confined production facilities—has increased in recent years. Nationwide, about 130 times more animal waste1 is produced than human waste—roughly 5 tons for every U.S. citizen—and some operations with hundreds of thousands of animals produce as much waste as a town or a city.2 These large volumes of waste threaten surface water and groundwater quality in the event of waste spills, leakage from waste storage facilities, and runoff from fields on which an excessive amount of waste has been applied as fertilizer. Furthermore, as animal production is increasingly concentrated in larger operations and in certain regions of the country, commonly used animal waste management practices may no longer be adequate for preventing water pollution.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Litter Legislation: a Toolkit for Policymakers
    Marine Litter Legislation: A Toolkit for Policymakers The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Environment Programme. No use of this publication may be made for resale or any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme. Applications for such permission, with a statement of the purpose and extent of the reproduction, should be addressed to the Director, DCPI, UNEP, P.O. Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya. Acknowledgments This report was developed by the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). It was researched, drafted, and produced by Carl Bruch, Kathryn Mengerink, Elana Harrison, Davonne Flanagan, Isabel Carey, Thomas Casey, Meggan Davis, Elizabeth Hessami, Joyce Lombardi, Norka Michel- en, Colin Parts, Lucas Rhodes, Nikita West, and Sofia Yazykova. Within UNEP, Heidi Savelli, Arnold Kreilhuber, and Petter Malvik oversaw the development of the report. The authors express their appreciation to the peer reviewers, including Catherine Ayres, Patricia Beneke, Angela Howe, Ileana Lopez, Lara Ognibene, David Vander Zwaag, and Judith Wehrli. Cover photo: Plastics floating in the ocean The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations Environment Programme. © 2016. United Nations Environment Programme. Marine Litter Legislation: A Toolkit for Policymakers Contents Foreword ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary: Litter in America
    executive summary: litter in america 2009 national litter research findings and recommendations EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Litter in America: National Findings and Recommendations P. Wesley Schultz, California State University Steven R. Stein, Environmental Resources Planning LLC Keep America Beautiful (KAB) is a non-profit organization dedicated to community improvement through litter prevention, waste reduction/recycling, and beautification. KAB was founded in 1953 and has grown into the nation’s leading community involvement organization, with more than 1,200 local affiliates and participating organizations. Much of the litter prevention work completed by KAB and its affiliates is based on seminal research conducted in the 1960s and 1970s about the sources and causes of litter. In an effort to update and advance the research foundation for their litter prevention activities, KAB funded a series of studies in 2008 and 2009 with financial support from Philip Morris USA, an Altria Company. These studies focused on two broad topics: litter and littering behavior. With regard to litter, the research team explored the composition of litter across America: its volume, locations and costs to local communities and businesses. With regard to littering behavior, the research team explored how often people litter, the individual and contextual variables that contribute to littering, and the effectiveness of various approaches to reducing littering rates. Technical reports from these two sets of studies are available through the KAB website (www.kab.org/research09). In this integrated executive summary, we summarize the basic methodology and results from the two funded studies, highlight key findings, and offer recommendations for ways to integrate these findings into litter prevention activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 9 Agricultural Waste Management Systems
    Part 651 Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Chapter 9 Agricultural Waste Management Systems (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 47, December 2011) Chapter 9 Agricultural Waste Management Systems Part 651 Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Issued December 2011 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all pro- grams.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for commu- nication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 47, December 2011) Acknowledgments Chapter 9 was originally prepared and printed in 1992 under the direction of James N. Krider (retired), national environmental engineer, Soil Conser- vation Service (SCS), now Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). James D. Rickman (retired), environmental engineer, NRCS, Fort Worth, Texas, provided day-to-day coordination in the development of the hand- book. Authors for chapter 9 included L.M. “Mac” Safley, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC; William H. Boyd, environmental engineer, Lincoln, Nebraska; A.
    [Show full text]
  • SB661 a Glossary of Agriculture, Environment, and Sustainable
    This publication from the Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service has been archived. Current information is available from http://www.ksre.ksu.edu. A Glossary of Agriculture, Environment, and Sustainable Development Bulletin 661 Agricultural Experiment Station, Kansas State University Marc Johnson, Director This publication from the Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service has been archived. Current information is available from http://www.ksre.ksu.edu. A GLOSSARY OF AGRICULTURE, ENVIRONMENT, AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT1 R. Scott Frey2 ABSTRACT This glossary contains general definitions of over 500 terms related to agricultural production, the environment, and sustainable develop- ment. Terms were chosen to increase awareness of major issues for the nonspecialist and were drawn from various social and natural science disciplines, including ecology, biology, epidemiology, chemistry, sociol- ogy, economics, anthropology, philosophy, and public health. 1 Contribution 96-262-B from the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station. 2 Professor of Sociology, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-4003. 1 This publication from the Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service has been archived. Current information is available from http://www.ksre.ksu.edu. PREFACE Agricultural production has increased dramatically in the United States and elsewhere in the past 50 years as agricultural practices have evolved. But this success has been costly: water pollution, soil depletion, and a host of human (and nonhuman) health and safety problems have emerged as impor- tant side effects associated with modern agricultural practices. Because of increased concern with these costs, an alternative view of agricultural production has arisen that has come to be known as sustain- able agriculture.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 California Ocean Litter Prevention Strategy
    ATMOSP ND HE A RI IC C N A A D E M I C N O I S L T A R N A O T I I T O A N N U .S E . C D R E E PA M RT OM MENT OF C 2018 California Ocean Litter Prevention Strategy: Addressing Marine Debris from Source to Sea June 2018 California Ocean Litter Prevention Strategy: Addressing Marine Debris from Source to Sea June 2018 Cover photo courtesy of Heal the Bay. Acknowledgment: The California Ocean Litter Prevention Strategy was developed through expert input from numerous California stakeholders. Funding was provided by the California Ocean Protection Council (OPC) and NOAA Marine Debris Program (NOAA MDP). Many thanks go to the workshop participants and others who contributed to the Strategy and will participate in its implementation. We would also like to thank Miho Ligare and Nina Venuti of California Sea Grant, Eben Schwartz of the California Coastal Commission, and Angela Howe of the Surfrider Foundation for their participation on the workshop planning team. We also thank NOAA MDP staff for assistance with workshop facilitation and note-taking, and for their help preparing the document for publication. The Strategy was drafted by California Sea Grant (M. Ligare and N. Venuti) under the direction of OPC (Holly Wyer) and NOAA MDP (Sherry Lippiatt). For citation purposes, please use: California Ocean Protection Council and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program. (2018). California Ocean Litter Prevention Strategy: Addressing Marine Debris from Source to Sea. For more information, please contact: California Ocean Protection Council Holly Wyer, Program Manager [email protected] (916)-653-0538 NOAA Marine Debris Program Sherry Lippiatt, California Regional Coordinator [email protected] (510)-410-2602 This publication does not constitute an endorsement of any commercial product or intend to be an opinion beyond scientific or other results obtained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    [Show full text]
  • Download As Part of Our Toolkit
    BUILDING VALUE TOGETHER BUILDING VALUE 3 TOGETHER Up Front The end-of-life for materials can often be the start of something new. That’s why we work not only to manage waste 19 responsibly, but also to collaborate with Waste Solutions our stakeholders to find ways to create new value—together. 49 Climate Change About This Report Waste Management is committed to consistent public disclosure and discussion of our progress through the publication of our Sustainability Report. In the past, we have published a comprehensive report every two years and an update of key data in between. Our last comprehensive report was published in 2018, with available data and key discussion items updated in 2019. Going forward, we are taking a new approach to reporting by publishing content in two different formats to further enhance reporting transparency: • Our annual Sustainability Report details the progress on our most material issues over the past year and is now available as an interactive website and PDF. 60 • Complementing our report is a new Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Workforce Resource Hub that houses easily accessible, detailed information and data related to many aspects of our ESG performance, policies and initiatives. The Hub also houses GRI and SASB Indexes and an archive of past reports. This report generally covers ESG performance for 2019 and early 2020 and, unless otherwise noted in the report, the report boundary is Waste Management’s wholly owned operations, which are in the United States, Canada and India. All data is for the year ended December 31, 2019, except where noted.
    [Show full text]
  • EPA's Guide for Industrial Waste Management
    Guide for Industrial Waste Management Protecting Land Ground Water Surface Water Air Building Partnerships Introduction EPA’s Guide for Industrial Waste Management Introduction Welcome to EPA’s Guide for Industrial Waste Management. The pur- pose of the Guide is to provide facility managers, state and tribal regulators, and the interested public with recommendations and tools to better address the management of land-disposed, non-haz- ardous industrial wastes. The Guide can help facility managers make environmentally responsible decisions while working in partnership with state and tribal regulators and the public. It can serve as a handy implementation reference tool for regulators to complement existing programs and help address any gaps. The Guide can also help the public become more informed and more knowledgeable in addressing waste management issues in the community. In the Guide, you will find: • Considerations for siting industrial waste management units • Methods for characterizing waste constituents • Fact sheets and Web sites with information about individual waste constituents • Tools to assess risks that might be posed by the wastes • Principles for building stakeholder partnerships • Opportunities for waste minimization • Guidelines for safe unit design • Procedures for monitoring surface water, air, and ground water • Recommendations for closure and post-closure care Each year, approximately 7.6 billion tons of industrial solid waste are generated and disposed of at a broad spectrum of American industrial facilities. State, tribal, and some local governments have regulatory responsibility for ensuring proper management of these wastes, and their pro- grams vary considerably. In an effort to establish a common set of industrial waste management guidelines, EPA and state and tribal representatives came together in a partnership and developed the framework for this voluntary Guide.
    [Show full text]
  • Effect of Organic Based Liquid Fertilizers on Growth Performance of Leaf Lettuce (Lactuca Sativa L.)
    International Conference on Agricultural, Ecological and Medical Sciences (AEMS-2015) April 7-8, 2015 Phuket (Thailand) Effect of Organic Based Liquid Fertilizers on Growth Performance of Leaf Lettuce (Lactuca Sativa L.) P. U. S. Peiris1, and W.A.P. Weerakkody2 Abstract---The best quality lettuce is assured by adequate eventhough there is an increasing consumer demand for fertilizing, steady supply of water and cool temperature. Most of the organically produced foods because of possible human health farmers are using inorganic fertilizers for lettuce in open fields and in hazards due to over usage and environmental degradation hydroponics. However, there is an increasing demand for organically caused by inorganic fertilizers [1]. produced fruits and vegetables. Therefore, the present study was conducted to study the plant growth in terms of fresh weight (FW, g/ Therefore, it is paramount important to evaluate the plant), dry weight (DW, g/plant), total leaf area (LA, cm2/plant), performance of lettuce in response to organic liquid fertilizers. maximum root length (RL, cm), specific leaf weight (SLW, g/cm2) Compost tea is a liquid extract of compost consisting with and number of leaves at harvest (NL) in leaf lettuce of variety ‘Grand essential plant nutrients and beneficial microorganisms which Rapid’ in three different organic based liquid fertilizers. The highest recycles organic matter. Compost tea also boosts the plant and FW was observed in T3 (Glliricidia leaf extract) where the average soil enhancing activity of soil life. Compost tea has been used EC and average pH were maintained at 0.43 dS/m and 5.85, as a fertilizer, pesticide and fungicide [2].
    [Show full text]
  • Sewage Sludge and Wastewater for Use in Agriculture
    IAEA-TECDOC-971 Sewage sludge and wastewater for use in agriculture Proceedings of consultants meetings organized by the Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture and the IAEA Division Physicalof Chemicaland Sciences, and held Vienna,in December5-9 1994 <> INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY The IAEA does not normally maintain stocks of reports in this series. However, microfiche copies of these reports can be obtained from IN IS Clearinghouse International Atomic Energy Agency Wagramerstrasse 5 P.O. Box 100 A-1400 Vienna, Austria Orders shoul accompaniee db prepaymeny db f Austriao t n Schillings 100, in the form of a cheque or in the form of IAEA microfiche service coupons which may be ordered separately from the INIS Clearinghouse. The originating Sections of this publication in the IAEA were Soil Fertility, Irrigatio Crod nan p Production Section Joint FAO/IAEA Division and Industrial Application Chemistrd san y Section International Atomic Energy Agency Wagramerstrasse5 PO Box 100 A-1400 Vienna, Austria SEWAGE SLUDG WASTEWATED AGRICULTUREN AN I E US R RFO E IAEA, VIENNA, 1997 IAEA-TECDOC-971 ISSN 1011-4289 ©IAEA, 1997 Printed by the IAEA in Austria October 1997 FOREWORD Wastes have been produced by mankind since ancient nomadic tribes settled into villages and started utilizing cultivatinfird ean g land. Archaeological evidence trace practice sth wastf eo e disposal back to antiquity. However, the concept of community-wide systematic collection, treatment, and disposa solif o l d waste wastewated san t evolvno d erdi unti late th le 19th century. The disposal of sewage sludge is a serious problem in many countries due to rapid urbanization Agriculture offers one solution: land application of municipal sewage sludge is practised throughout the world, with beneficial effects on crop yields, soil organic matter, cation exchange capacity, water holding capacit soid yan l fertilit generalym .
    [Show full text]