livestock manure windrow composting runoff and ... · -p losses during the second and final compost...

Agricultural and Biosystems EngineeringPublications Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering

2011

Livestock Manure Windrow Composting RunoffAnd Infiltration Characteristics from LaboratoryRainfall SimulationsDavid F. WebberIowa State University, [email protected]

Steven K. MickelsonIowa State University, [email protected]

Bryan D. WhitmanIowa State University, [email protected]

T. L. RichardPennsylvania State University

Heekwon AhnUnited States Department of AgricultureFollow this and additional works at: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/abe_eng_pubs

Part of the Agricultural Science Commons, Agriculture Commons, Agronomy and CropSciences Commons, and the Bioresource and Agricultural Engineering Commons

The complete bibliographic information for this item can be found at http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/abe_eng_pubs/533. For information on how to cite this item, please visit http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/howtocite.html.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering at Iowa State University Digital Repository. Ithas been accepted for inclusion in Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Publications by an authorized administrator of Iowa State UniversityDigital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected].

http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/?utm_source=lib.dr.iastate.edu%2Fabe_eng_pubs%2F533&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/?utm_source=lib.dr.iastate.edu%2Fabe_eng_pubs%2F533&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/abe_eng_pubs?utm_source=lib.dr.iastate.edu%2Fabe_eng_pubs%2F533&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages


http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/abe_eng?utm_source=lib.dr.iastate.edu%2Fabe_eng_pubs%2F533&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages


http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/1063?utm_source=lib.dr.iastate.edu%2Fabe_eng_pubs%2F533&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages





http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/abe_eng_pubs/533

http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/abe_eng_pubs/533

http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/howtocite.html

http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/howtocite.html

mailto:[email protected]

This article was downloaded by: [Iowa State University]On: 04 September 2014, At: 17:41Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 MortimerStreet, London W1T 3JH, UK

Compost Science & UtilizationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucsu20

Livestock Manure Windrow Composting Runoff And InfiltrationCharacteristics from Laboratory Rainfall SimulationsD.F. Webbera, S.K. Mickelsona, B.D. Whitmana, T.L Richardb & H.K. Ahnc

a Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowab Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, University Park,Pennsylvaniac USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MarylandPublished online: 23 Jul 2013.

To cite this article: D.F. Webber, S.K. Mickelson, B.D. Whitman, T.L Richard & H.K. Ahn (2011) Livestock Manure Windrow CompostingRunoff And Infiltration Characteristics from Laboratory Rainfall Simulations, Compost Science & Utilization, 19:1, 6-14, DOI:10.1080/1065657X.2011.10736971

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1065657X.2011.10736971

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in thispublication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracyof the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylorand Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of theuse of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucsu20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/1065657X.2011.10736971

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1065657X.2011.10736971

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

6 Compost Science & Utilization Winter 2011

Introduction

The management of livestock manure producedin large feedlots and dairies poses a significant envi-ronmental problem in agricultural areas (James et al.2007) and is a major source of water pollution in USsurface waters (Parry 1998). While manure is an excel-lent source of organic matter and plant nutrients, con-ventional manure utilization that incorporates propermanagement practices can elevate runoff concentra-tions of nutrients such as carbon, nitrogen, and phos-phorus (Westerman et al. 1987; Edwards and Daniel1993; Heathwaite et al. 1998; Burton and Turner 2003).

Windrow composting consists of placing manureand other raw materials in long narrow piles orwindrows which are agitated or turned on a regularbasis (Rynk et al. 1992). Studies have shown that com-posted manure can improve soil physical properties(Spargo et al. 2006; Evanylo et al. 2008) and is less haz-ardous to the environment (Eghball and Power 1999;Vervoort et al. 1998) since much of the mineral nitro-gen is converted to more stable organic forms (Rynk etal. 1992). However, one of the disadvantages ofwindrow composting is nutrient losses that take placeduring the composting process, which can occurthrough leaching, runoff, and volatilization (Chris-

Compost Science & Utilization, (2011), Vol. 19, No. 1, 6-14

Livestock Manure Windrow Composting Runoff And Infiltration Characteristics from

Laboratory Rainfall Simulations

D.F. Webber1, S.K. Mickelson1*, B.D. Whitman1, T.L Richard2 and H.K. Ahn3

1. Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa2. Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Pennsylvania State University,

University Park, Pennsylvania3. USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, Maryland

*E-mail contact: [email protected]

Windrow-composted livestock manure has been shown to be less hazardous to the environment comparedto manure directly applied to cropland and other agricultural areas. Although offsite contaminant lossesthrough runoff and leaching can occur during the composting process, these losses are suspected to in-crease under different compost moisture conditions and as composted materials mature. This researchquantified the effects of windrow-composted livestock manure and straw bedding components on runoffand infiltration characteristics from laboratory rainfall simulations. Compost samples collected on threedates at approximately the beginning (day 0), middle (day 30), and end (day 60) of a June-July 2004 field re-search windrow composting period were used for this rainfall simulation study. Replicated compostwindrow-shaped cross-section samples were constructed in a specially-designed Plexiglas container appa-ratus for viewing and recording infiltrated leachate wetting front position boundary movement from sim-ulated rainfall events. Runoff and leachate samples were collected and analyzed for drainage volumes andconcentrations and total mass losses of sediment, nitrate-nitrogen (NO

3-N), and ortho-phosphorus (PO

4-P)

during and following rainfall simulation trials. Leachate wetting front position boundary movement wassignificantly lower for day 60 compost samples compared among day 0 and day 30 compost sample mate-rial. Drainage volume analysis results indicated significantly higher average runoff versus leachate vol-umes within all compost sampling dates, and runoff volumes were significantly higher among day 30 andday 60 compost samples compared to runoff volumes from day 0 compost samples. Average sediment,NO

3-N, and PO

4-P concentrations were significantly higher in leachate versus runoff within all compost

sampling dates. Conversely, the total mass losses of these contaminants were significantly higher in runoffcompared to leachate within all compost sampling dates. Results of this study suggest that biological andmechanical functions of the composting process reduced compost sample aggregates and increased com-post bulk density. We hypothesize that these changes in compost material structure and porosity volumedecreased infiltration and increased runoff sediment, NO

3-N, and PO

4-P losses during the second and final

compost sampling stages of a field windrow composting period.

6-14 Mickelson 3/10/11 11:27 AM Page 6

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Iow

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:41

04

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Livestock Manure Windrow Composting Runoff And Infiltration Characteristics from Laboratory Rainfall Simulations

Compost Science & Utilization Winter 2011 7

tensen 1983, 1984; Richard and Chadsey 1994; Eghballet al. 1997; Tiquia et al. 2000; Michel et al. 2004; Parkin-son et al. 2004; Peigne and Girardin 2004). Mass bal-ance analysis results from a windrow composting siteindicated 20% to 60% losses of nitrogen, phosphorus,and potassium during the composting process (Tiquiaet al. 2002), of which the most significant losses werein runoff and leachate (Garrison et al. 2001).

This report documents results from a controlledlaboratory study of runoff and infiltration characteris-tics of windrow-shaped cross-section samples of com-posted livestock manure collected at different stages ofthe composting process. This research effort includedconducting consecutive high-intensity, short-durationsimulated rainfall events on unsaturated and saturatedcompost windrow samples. The primary objective ofthis study was to determine the significance of biologi-cal and mechanical functions of the composting processon compost windrow runoff and infiltration character-istics. This involved comparative analyses of compostwetting front position boundary movement, runoff andleachate drainage volumes, and related field compostmass balance data. Further analysis included assessingtrends of runoff and leachate sediment and nutrientconcentrations and total mass losses from rainfall sim-ulations. These rainfall simulations also were conduct-ed under different compost moisture conditions andmaturity levels using compost samples collected dur-ing a 60-day field windrow composting study period.

Materials and Methods

This study was conducted during October 2005-March 2006 in the Department of Agricultural andBiosystems Engineering (ABE) Porous Media Labora-tory located in Davidson Hall, Iowa State University(ISU), Ames, Iowa USA. The semi-mature compostmaterial used in this study was obtained from a live-stock manure windrow composting research projectsite during June-July 2004 located at the former ISUDairy Teaching Farm in Ames, Iowa. Composted ma-terial at the site consisted of straw bedding, dairy cow,horse, and sheep manure components and was sys-tematically sampled from replicated compostwindrow plots distributed in a randomized completeblock design (Webber et al. 2009).

Compost Windrow Cross-Section Container Apparatus

This study used a reinforced Plexiglas and woodbox structure designed to contain a full-scale prototypecross-section sample of a half-pile compost windrow(Figure 1). The inside dimensions of the compostwindrow cross-section container were 100 cm (39.4 in)

long x 72.4 cm (28.5 in) high x 10.2 cm (4.00 in) wideand allowed simulated rainfall to infiltrate into andrun off of the compost windrow cross-section sample.The transparent 2.00 cm (0.79 in)-thick Plexiglas sidepanels provided visibility of runoff over the compostsurface and infiltrated rainfall movement through thecompost windrow cross-section sample. Six plastic col-umn-style depth rain gauges were affixed to the fourcorners and midway between the two 100-cm (39.4-in)long sides of the top of the compost container to ap-proximate average simulated rainfall depth for cali-brating the rainfall simulator and determining opti-mum compost container position for consistent resultswithin the rainfall simulation area.

The compost windrow cross-section containerhad five brass hose barb nozzle openings spaced sym-metrically across the bottom side of the unit for col-lecting runoff and infiltrated leachate drainage sam-ples. Transparent plastic hoses were attached to thenozzle openings for viewing drainage initiation times,monitoring flow conditions and potential blockage lo-cations, and collecting drainage samples outside of therainfall simulation area (Figure 1). All drain openingpositions were measured from the left side of the con-tainer where the base or “toe” of the compost windrowcross-section samples were located (Figure 1).

Drain opening position measurements includeddrain (1) = 8.00 cm (3.15 in), drain (2) = 25.0 cm (9.84in), drain (3) = 50.0 cm (19.7 in), drain (4) = 75.0 cm(29.5 in), and drain (5) = 92.0 cm (36.2 in). Individualdrain openings included four 5.00-cm (1.97-in) high,2.00-cm (0.79-in) thick Plexiglas dividers placed on thebottom of the container equally spaced around eachdrain opening. The dividers were placed at pointsmeasured from the left side of the container and in-cluded lengths of 16.5 cm (6.50 in), 33.4 cm (13.1 in),66.8 cm (26.3 in), and 83.3 cm (32.8 in).

FIGURE 1. Compost windrow cross-section prototype Plexiglascontainer apparatus placed in the rainfall simulator with column-style rain gauges (top) and transparent plastic drainage collectionhoses (bottom). Note the compost container apparatus facial areazones 1 (runoff drainage), 2 (buffer), and 3 (leachate drainage) andthe diagonal dashed line and arrows indicating the wetting frontposition boundary.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Iow

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:41

04

Sept

embe

r 20

14

To provide separation boundaries for runoff andleachate drainage, three 33.4 cm (13.1 in)-longrunoff/infiltration zones were assigned to the trans-parent facial viewing area side panel of the compostcross-section container (Figure 1). Drain openings 1and 2, and 4 and 5 were integrated to drain the left andright compost windrow cross-section facial area zones1 and 3, respectively, and the center drain opening 3exclusively drained zone 2. Since infiltrating runoffand contaminants could conceivably move betweenzones 1 and 2, and zones 2 and 3, zones 1 and 3 weredesignated as runoff and leachate drainage, respec-tively, and used in the subsequent data analysis. Zone2 provided a vertical compost buffer column forrunoff and leachate, and the respective drainage re-sults were not used in the statistical analysis due topossible inaccurate determinations from potentialrunoff and leachate cross-contamination issues.

Rainfall Simulator and Simulation Procedure

The ABE Porous Media Laboratory rainfall simu-lator is a programmable nozzle-type unit with rain-drop formation and raindrop velocity based on thesystem water pressure level. The rainfall simulator has12 nozzles located in three rows with four nozzles perrow. Lateral spacing between nozzles is 77.0 cm (30.3in) and the spacing between rows is approximately 110cm (43.3 in). During a rainfall simulation trial, the noz-zles sweep back and forth in a 90° arc, and were man-ually set at a frequency of 1.67 oscillations s-1. Theheight of the rainfall simulator from the compost cross-section sample was approximately 300 cm (118 in).

The combined rainfall simulator specificationsand nozzle sweep frequency setting produced a rain-fall rate of 76.2 mm h-1 (3.00 in h-1) to simulate a 50-yr,60-min storm (Fangmeier et al. 2006). These high in-tensity/short duration precipitation parameters wereselected to generate high-volume simulated rainfallthat was similar to some actual field rainfall events.These parameters also were selected to better insuresufficient runoff/leachate sample sizes for a valid dataanalysis. The use of a 60-min rainfall simulation alsoprovided a more manageable trial period due to thelengthy rainfall simulator and compost cross-sectionsample preparation time.

Compost Windrow Cross-Sections and Data Collection

Compost samples used for constructing the labo-ratory prototype compost windrow cross-sections forrainfall simulations were collected from three full-scalecompost windrows at the ISU windrow compostingresearch site during June-July 2004 (Webber et al. 2009).

Compost material sampling was conducted during a60-day composting period at approximately the begin-ning (date the compost windrow was constructed),middle, and end (date the compost windrow was re-moved) on sampling dates 6-9-04 (day 0), 7-7-04 (day30), and 7-29-04 (day 60), respectively. Compost sam-ples for each sampling date were placed in the compostwindrow cross-section container apparatus andshaped into the full-scale compost windrow prototypein a half-pile configuration. These cross-section half-piles were replicated three times for each samplingdate, and were systematically constructed regardingcompost cross-section sample size packing and shap-ing to maintain a consistent compost bulk density.

All data collected for this study were designatedas rainfall simulation run 1 (unsaturated compost)and run 2 (saturated compost) for two consecutive60-min duration simulated rainfall events for eachcompost sampling date. The run 2 simulated rainfallevents were conducted at approximately the 1440-min (24-hr) time increment after run 1 events. Wet-ting front position (WFP) zone area ratio andrunoff/leachate drainage volume data were collect-ed at time increments set at 5, 20, 40, 60, 120, and 1440min for each simulated rainfall event (1440-min du-ration data results were not collected for day 30 com-post cross-section sample run 2 analysis). Rainfallsimulation results are shown as an average of threereplicated compost cross-sections for each samplingdate for run 1 and run 2. Runoff and leachatedrainage from each simulated rainfall event was col-lected and stored until analysis could be conductedaccording to standard protocols (American WaterWorks Association 1998) at the ABE Water QualityLaboratory, National Swine Research and Informa-tion Center, ISU, Ames, Iowa USA.

Compost windrow cross-section WFP zone arearatio data were collected by observing the contrast-ing boundary line of upper moisture-darkened com-post adjacent to the lower lighter-colored dry com-post (indicated by a diagonal dashed line and arrowsin Figure 1). The compost container apparatus facialarea horizontal and vertical coordinate values wererecorded in centimeters for zones 1 and 3 and WFPratios were calculated to provide a comparison ofWFP boundary movement and drainage volume lev-els. These WFP ratio and drainage volume calcula-tions and comparisons quantify some importantrunoff and infiltration characteristics of the windrowcompost cross-section samples. The WFP boundarylines were observed at the 20- and 40-minute time in-crements when the rainfall simulation was brieflystopped and WFP boundary line coordinates wererecorded.

D.F. Webber, S.K. Mickelson, B.D. Whitman, T.L Richard and H.K. Ahn



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Iow

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:41

04

Sept

embe

r 20

14



The WFP boundary coordinates also were ob-served and recorded when rainfall simulation trialswere stopped at the 60-min time increment (the end ofruns 1 and 2 rainfall simulations), at the 120-min timeincrement (60 min after the end of runs 1 and 2 rainfallsimulations), and after the compost windrow cross-section samples drained for approximately 24 hours(1440-min time increment; immediately prior to start-ing run 2 rainfall simulations). The WFP boundary co-ordinate data were then converted into unitless deci-mal fractions for each facial area zone by dividing thesaturated upper moisture-darkened compost zonearea (cm2) by the total compost zone area (cm2)viewed through the transparent Plexiglas facial panelof the compost windrow cross-section container appa-ratus (Figure 1).

Runoff and leachate drainage volume data fromthe compost windrow cross-section samples were col-lected to compare runoff and leachate infiltrationcharacteristics within and among compost materialsampling dates, and between rainfall simulations run1 and run 2. An electronic scale unit placed under thecompost cross-section container was used to measurecompost windrow cross-section pile weights for esti-mating infiltrated water volume levels during thecourse of each simulated rainfall event and wasrecorded at 5-min increments. In addition to provid-ing a running comparison of runoff/leachate volumesto WFP zone area ratios, these weight-based volumeestimates were compared to runoff and leachate vol-umes from compost windrow cross-section zone 1, 2,and 3 drainage samples collected at the end of each 60-min duration rainfall simulation for runs 1 and 2.

Runoff and leachate drainage volumes also werecollected to provide water quality analysis samples fordetermining concentrations of sediment and nutrientcontaminants within and among compost materialsampling dates and between rainfall simulation runs 1and 2. Sediment (total solids) concentrations (g kg-1) inrunoff and leachate were measured using a gravimet-ric oven-drying method (American Water Works As-sociation 1998). Nitrate-nitrogen (NO

3-N) concentra-

tions (mg L-1) were analyzed by an automated flowinjection cadmium reduction method (American Wa-ter Works Association 1998) using a LachatQuickchem 2000 Automated Ion Analyzer system(Hach Company, Colorado, USA). Ortho-phosphorus(PO

4-P) concentrations (mg L-1) were analyzed by an

automated flow injection ascorbic acid method(American Water Works Association 1998) using aLachat Quickchem 2000 Automated Ion Analyzer sys-tem. All concentration values were converted to totalmass losses units of g and mg for sediment and nutri-ent contaminants, respectively.

Significance of treatment mean differences withinand among compost sampling dates and betweenrainfall simulation runs 1 and 2 was determined usingthe General Linear Model (GLM) Procedure and LeastSquares Mean (LSMEANS) Test (SAS Institute, 2004)to analyze differences in rainfall simulation treatmentmeans at the 95% probability level.

Results and Discussion

Wetting Front Position (WFP) Zone Area Ratios

Average WFP zone area ratios for compost cross-section material samples from day 0, day 30, and day 60under laboratory rainfall simulation run 1 (unsaturatedcompost) and run 2 (saturated compost) are shown inFigures 2-7. Higher and lower WFP ratios correspond-ed to faster and slower WFP boundary movement, re-spectively. Figures 2 and 4, depicting run 1 compostsamples for day 0 and day 30, respectively, indicate sig-nificantly lower (p < 0.05) WFP ratios for 20-, 40-, and60-min rainfall simulation time durations for zone 3(leachate) compared to zone 1 (runoff). However, Fig-ure 6 showing compost sample results for day 60 indi-cates leachate WFP ratios for 20-, 40-, 60-, 120-, and1440-min time increments were significantly lower (p <0.05) than all runoff WFP ratio time increments for run1. The day 60 compost sample 120-min time incrementWFP ratio for leachate (Figure 6) also was significantlylower (p < 0.05) compared among 120-min leachateWFP ratios for day 0 and day 30 compost cross-sectionsamples (Figures 2 and 4, respectively).

Figures 3 and 5 showing run 2 compost samplesday 0 and day 30, respectively, indicate significantlyhigher (p < 0.05) leachate WFP ratios for 20- and 40-min time increments compared to respective run 1leachate WFP ratios (Figures 2 and 4, respectively;1440-min duration data were not collected for day 30sample analysis). Figure 7 shows compost cross-sec-tion sample day 60 run 2 results and indicates signifi-cantly lower (p < 0.05) leachate WFP ratios for 20-, 40-,and 60-min time increments compared to runoff.

These data indicate a significant reduction inWFP boundary movement during the final compostsampling date material and suggest a relationship ofreduced infiltration and increased runoff from thewindrow compost cross-section samples to biologi-cal (microbial consumption) and mechanical (ma-chine turning) composting process functions on com-post material structure and porosity volume. Ahn etal. (2008) reported an average 20 to 56% reduction incompost aggregates and an approximately 10% in-crease in bulk density during the 60-day fieldwindrow composting study period. These results are


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Iow

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:41

04

Sept

embe

r 20

14

from both outer and center compost windrow layers(approximately corresponding to compost cross-sec-tion container apparatus zones 1 and 3, respectively)and are based on analysis of composted materialscollected at the ISU windrow composting site duringthe June-July 2004 composting period (Ahn et al.

2008). This windrow composted material was sam-pled on day 0, day 30, and day 60 and is from thesame compost windrows in which samples wereused in the laboratory rainfall simulations.



FIGURE 4. Wetting front position (WFP) zone area ratios from com-post cross-section material sample day 30 (7-7-04) for rainfall simu-lation run 1 (unsaturated compost) and compost facial area drainagezones 1 (runoff), 2 (buffer), and 3 (leachate) and 20-, 40-, 60-, 120-,and 1440-min simulation time increments. Significant treatment dif-ferences (p < 0.05) within sampling dates are indicated by a differ-ent letter (b). Error bars represent one standard deviation.

FIGURE 7. Wetting front position (WFP) zone area ratios from com-post cross-section material sample day 60 (7-29-04) for rainfall sim-ulation run 2 (saturated compost) and compost facial area drainagezones 1 (runoff), 2 (buffer), and 3 (leachate) and 20-, 40-, 60-, 120-,and 1440-min simulation time increments. Significant treatmentdifferences (p < 0.05) within sampling dates are indicated by a dif-ferent letter (b). Error bars represent one standard deviation.

FIGURE 6. Wetting front position (WFP) zone area ratios from com-post cross-section material sample day 60 (7-29-04) for rainfall sim-ulation run 1 (unsaturated compost) and compost facial areadrainage zones 1 (runoff), 2 (buffer), and 3 (leachate) and 20-, 40-,60-, 120-, and 1440-min simulation time increments. Significanttreatment differences (p < 0.05) within and among sampling datesare indicated by different letters (b and c, respectively). Error barsrepresent one standard deviation.

FIGURE 5. Wetting front position (WFP) zone area ratios from com-post cross-section material sample day 30 (7-7-04) for rainfall simu-lation run 2 (saturated compost) and compost facial area drainagezones 1 (runoff), 2 (buffer), and 3 (leachate) and 20-, 40-, 60-, and120-min simulation time increments (1440-min increment datawere not collected). Significant treatment differences (p < 0.05) be-tween run 1 and run 2 are indicated by a different letter (d). Errorbars represent one standard deviation.

FIGURE 2. Wetting front position (WFP) zone area ratios from com-post cross-section material sample day 0 (6-9-04) for rainfall simula-tion run 1 (unsaturated compost) and compost facial area drainagezones 1 (runoff), 2 (buffer), and 3 (leachate) and 20-, 40-, 60-, 120-,and 1440-min simulation time increments. Significant treatment dif-ferences (p < 0.05) within sampling dates are indicated by a differ-ent letter (b). Error bars represent one standard deviation.

FIGURE 3. Wetting front position (WFP) zone area ratios from com-post cross-section material sample day 0 (6-9-04) for rainfall simu-lation run 2 (saturated compost) and compost facial area drainagezones 1 (runoff), 2 (buffer), and 3 (leachate) and 20-, 40-, 60-, 120-,and 1440-min simulation time increments. Significant treatmentdifferences (p < 0.05) between run 1 and run 2 are indicated by a dif-ferent letter (d). Error bars represent one standard deviation.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Iow

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:41

04

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Runoff and Leachate Drainage Volumes

Average runoff and leachate drainage volumesfrom compost cross-section container apparatus facialarea zones 1 and 3, respectively, are reported in Table1. These data include compost material samples fromday 0, day 30, and day 60 under rainfall simulationsrun 1 and run 2. Runoff and leachate drainage volumeanalysis results indicated significantly higher (p < 0.05)runoff versus leachate volumes within all compostsampling dates. Runoff drainage volumes also weresignificantly higher (p < 0.05) among day 30 and day 60compost samples compared to runoff volumes fromthe day 0 compost sample, and there were no signifi-cant differences (p < 0.05) between runs 1 and 2. Runoffdrainage volumes were significantly higher (p < 0.05)than leachate drainage during runs 1 and 2 for com-post samples day 0, day 30, and day 60 (Table 1).Runoff drainage volumes also were significantly high-er (p < 0.05) in compost samples day 30 and day 60compared to day 0 for runs 1 and 2, and there were nosignificant differences (p < 0.05) between runs 1 and 2for all sampling date data (Table 1).

Runoff percent of total rainfall from compostwindrow cross-section samples day 0, day 30, and day60 (Table 1) increased significantly in the second andfinal sampling dates (p < 0.05) and included 25%, 39%,36%, and 28%, 49%, and 53% for runs 1 and 2, respec-tively. These runoff values tend to parallel findings re-ported by Ahn et al. (2008) where compost aggregatereduction and an increase in compost bulk density re-duced infiltration and increased runoff during thewindrow composting period.

In contrast, Seymour and Bourdon (2003) foundthat higher rainfall volume resulted in higher leachate

volume compared to runoff volume in five of their sixnatural rainfall events. Seymour and Bourdon (2003)also reported that the single rainfall event with higherpercent runoff versus leachate volume occurred with-in hours of compost windrow construction and thenewly mixed compost material may not have ab-sorbed water as rapidly as an older windrow. Wilsonet al. (2004) reported that 68% of rainfall incident oncompost windrows resulted in runoff under field andlaboratory rainfall conditions. Wilson et al. (2004) alsoindicated the 68% runoff value probably representedan upper bound because the compost in their physicalmodel was close to saturation and was subjected toheavy simulated rainfall.

Sediment, NO3-N, and PO

4-P Concentrations

And Total Mass Losses

Average sediment, NO3-N, and PO

4-P concentra-

tions and total mass losses are shown in Tables 2 and 3,respectively, and include runoff and leachate drainagefrom compost material samples day 0, day 30, and day60 for run 1 and run 2 rainfall simulation trials. Notethat leachate sediment, NO

3-N, and PO

4-P concentra-

tion and total losses values for run 1 compost sampleday 60 (Tables 2 and 3) are not available due to insuffi-cient leachate drainage sample volumes that were lessthan the minimum 100 ml for sediment analysis and 10ml for NO

3-N and PO

4-P analyses.

Sediment, NO3-N, and PO

4-P concentrations were

significantly higher (p < 0.05) in leachate versus runoffwithin all compost sampling dates. Seymour and Bour-don (2003) also reported that leachate tended to havehigher concentrations of nutrients compared to runoff.Conversely, this laboratory rainfall simulation studyfound sediment, NO

3-N, and PO

4-P total losses were

significantly higher (p < 0.05) in runoff compared toleachate within all compost sampling dates. This rain-fall simulation study also found concentration and totallosses PO

4-P data were significantly higher (p < 0.05) in

the second compost sampling date, and second and fi-nal compost sampling date material, respectively. Sey-mour and Bourdon (2003) used compost windrows thatwere less than 28 days old and suggested that more ma-ture compost windrows may leach nutrients morereadily than newly constructed windrows.

The PO4-P concentration and total mass losses

data for all compost sampling dates indicated no sig-nificant differences (p < 0.05) between run 1 and run 2rainfall simulation trials. Seymour and Bourdon (2003)stated the availability of phosphorus in compost to dis-solve was not as great or as affected by rainfall charac-teristics as nitrogen species. Similarly, runoff sedimentand NO

3-N concentrations and total losses from this



TABLE 1.Runoff (zone 1) and leachate (zone 3) average drainagevolume (ml) and percent of total simulated rainfall (%)

from compost cross-section material samples day 0 (6-9-04),day 30 (7-7-04), and day 60 (7-29-04) for rainfall simulation

run 1 (unsaturated compost) and run 2 (saturatedcompost). Significant treatment differences (p < 0.05)

within and among compost sampling dates are indicatedby different letters b and c, respectively. There were no

significant differences (p < 0.05) between rainfallsimulation runs 1 and 2.

Runoff/ Volumes/ Day Day DayLeachate Percents 0 30 60

Unsaturated Runoff (ml/%) 1918/25a 3061/39ac 2801/36ac

(Run 1) Leachate (ml/%) 93.7/1b 280/4b 5.00/0.1b

Saturated Runoff (ml/%) 2189/28a 3837/49ac 4089/53ac

(Run 2) Leachate (ml/%) 291/4b 806/10b 146/2b


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Iow

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:41

04

Sept

embe

r 20

14

rainfall simulation study for all compost samplingdates were significantly higher (p < 0.05) in run 1 com-pared to run 2 simulation trials. Seymour and Bourdon(2003) attributed significantly lower NO

3-N concentra-

tions to higher volume rainfall events with greater di-lution potential. Seymour and Bourdon (2003) alsosuggested that variable rainfall conditions and com-post maturity level contributed to erratic NO

3-N con-

centrations in their results.Ahn et al. (2008) reported a significant decrease in

compost aggregates and increase in bulk density dur-ing the composting process can reduce infiltration andincrease runoff volume, possibly resulting in more di-luted sediment and NO

3-N concentrations in runoff

from run 2 versus run 1 simulation trials. It alsoshould be noted that some sediment and nutrient con-centration data reported in other field windrow com-posting studies under natural rainfall conditions (Sey-mour and Bourdon 2003; Webber et al. 2009) aresubstantially lower than concentration values fromthis controlled laboratory study. These relatively

higher contaminant concentrations may be attributedto additional composting time from the approximate-ly 15-month storage period of compost samples priorto commencing the compost cross-section rainfall sim-ulation trials. The higher contaminant concentrationsfrom these rainfall simulations also may have been aresult of collecting runoff and leachate samplesthrough individual drainage hoses, isolating the sam-ples from additional rainfall volume that was avail-able to field runoff samples and preventing further di-lution of contaminant concentrations.

Conclusions

Windrow-composted livestock manure materialshave been shown to provide a useful soil amendmentproduct for improving soil physical properties andminimizing adverse environmental effects. However,a disadvantage of windrow composting is nutrientlosses during the composting process, which occursprimarily through runoff, leaching, and volatilization.



TABLE 3.Runoff (zone 1) and leachate (zone 3) average sediment total mass losses (g) and nutrients (nitrate-nitrogen [NO

3-N]

and ortho-phosphorus [PO4-P]) total losses (mg) from compost cross-section material samples day 0 (6-9-04), day 30 (7-7-04),

and day 60 (7-29-04) for rainfall simulation run 1 (unsaturated compost) and run 2 (saturated compost). Significant treatment differences (p < 0.05) within and among compost sampling dates, and between runs 1 and 2 are

indicated by different letters b, c, and d, respectively (*No Data [ND] — samples < minimum analysis volume of 100 ml;**samples < minimum analysis volume of 10 ml).

Sediment/Nutrients Day 0 Day 30 Day 60Total Mass Losses Run 1 Run 2 Run 1 Run 2 Run 1 Run 2

Runoff Sediment (g) 12.7a 7.17ad 28.3ac 12.1ad 22.3ac 17.5ad

NO3-N (mg) 557a 119ad 1526ac 340ad 861ac 280ad

PO4-P (mg) 31.3a 36.1a 78.6ac 109ac 20.1a 28.7a

Leachate Sediment (g) 2.06b 8.21a 7.60b 20.8ac *ND 3.63b

NO3-N (mg) 51.9b 538bd 434bc 1082bc **ND 157a

PO4-P (mg) 3.34b 8.60b 10.1b 27.7b **ND 27.2a

TABLE 2.Runoff (zone 1) and leachate (zone 3) average sediment concentrations (g kg-1) and nutrients (nitrate-nitrogen [NO

3-N]

and ortho-phosphorus [PO4-P]) concentrations (mg L-1) from compost cross-section material samples day 0 (6-9-04),

day 30 (7-7-04), and day 60 (7-29-04) for rainfall simulation run 1 (unsaturated compost) and run 2 (saturated compost).Significant treatment differences (p < 0.05) within and among compost sampling dates, and between runs 1 and 2 are

indicated by different letters b, c, and d, respectively (*No Data [ND] — samples < minimum analysis volume of 100 ml;**samples < minimum analysis volume of 10 ml).

Sediment/Nutrients Day 0 Day 30 Day 60Concentrations Run 1 Run 2 Run 1 Run 2 Run 1 Run 2

Runoff Sediment (g kg-1) 6.63a 3.27ad 9.24a 3.15ad 7.92a 4.92ad

NO3-N (mg L-1) 290a 54.2ad 499a 88.5ad 306a 68.5ad

PO4-P (mg L-1) 16.3a 16.5a 25.7ac 28.3ac 20.1ac 28.7ac

Leachate Sediment (g kg-1) 22.8b 27.8b 27.0b 25.8b *ND 24.2b

NO3-N (mg L-1) 575b 1823bd 1540b 1335b **ND 1048b

PO4-P (mg L-1) 37.0b 29.1b 35.9b 34.3b **ND 27.2a


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Iow

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:41

04

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Other findings also indicated that these losses may in-crease under different compost moisture conditionsand as composted materials mature. This controlledstudy quantified the effects of windrow-compostedlivestock manure components on runoff and infiltra-tion characteristics from laboratory rainfall simula-tions. These effects included variable runoff andleachate drainage volumes and concentrations and to-tal mass losses of sediment, NO

3-N, and PO

4-P under

unsaturated and saturated compost moisture levelsand from compost material sampled during differentstages of the composting process.

Results of this study indicate a shift to significant-ly slower leachate WFP boundary movement and low-er leachate drainage volumes and significantly higherrunoff drainage volumes from day 30 and day 60 com-post samples. The combined laboratory rainfall simu-lation and field windrow composting study resultsalso suggest composting process biological and me-chanical functions reduced compost sample aggregatematerial and increased compost bulk density. We hy-pothesize that these changes in compost materialstructure and porosity volume during the windrowcomposting field study decreased WFP boundarymovement and infiltration volumes and increasedrunoff volumes and sediment, NO

3-N, and PO

4-P loss-

es during second and final stages of the windrow com-posting period. These results may provide agricultur-al resource managers with runoff, infiltration, andcomposting period data for adjusting compost processmanagement procedures to reduce runoff and conta-minant losses from windrow composting sites.

Acknowledgements

Funding support for this research was providedby the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Thanksto Mr. Marc P. Lott, Laboratory Mechanical Technicianand shop manager, Iowa State University Agriculturaland Biosystems Engineering (ABE) Department, forhis assistance in building the compost windrow cross-section container apparatus. Also thanks to Mr. LorenE. Shiers, Research Associate, Iowa State UniversityABE Department Water Quality Laboratory, for com-post windrow cross-section drainage water samplesediment and nutrient analyses.

References

Ahn, H.K., Richard, T.L., Mickelson, S.K. and Webber, D.F.2008. Nutrient mass balance of a demonstrationwindrow composting site. Poster presented at Iowa De-partment of Natural Resources and Iowa Department ofAgriculture and Land Stewardship Environmental Con-ferences, February 25-26, 2008, Scheman Continuing Ed-

ucation Building, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.American Water Works Association. 1998. Method 4500, 4-

121. In Standard Methods for the Examination of Waterand Wastewater. American Public Health Association,American Water Works Association, Water Environ-ment Federation. 20th edition. Denver, CO: AmericanWater Works Association.

Burton, C. and Turner, C. 2003. Manure Management: Treat-ment Strategies for Sustainable Agriculture. Silsoe Re-search Institute, Silsoe, UK.

Christensen, T.H. 1983. Leaching from land disposed mu-nicipal composts: 2. Nitrogen. Waste Manage. Res.,1(1):115-125.

Christensen, T.H. 1984. Leaching from land disposed mu-nicipal composts: 3. Inorganic ions. Waste Manage. Res.,2(1):63-74.

Edwards, D.R. and Daniel, T.C. 1993. Abstractions andrunoff from fescue plots receiving poultry litter andswine manure. Trans. ASAE, 36(2):405-411.

Eghball, B. and Power, J.F. 1999. Composted and noncom-posted manure application to conventional and no-tillage systems: Corn yield and nitrogen uptake. Agron.J., 91(5):819-825.

Eghball, B., Power, J.F., Gilley, J.E. and Doran, J.W. 1997. Nu-trient carbon and mass loss of beef cattle feedlot manureduring composting. J. Environ. Qual., 26(1):189-193.

Evanylo, G., Sherony, C., Spargo, J., Starner, D., Brosius, M.and Haering, K. 2008. Soil and environmental effects offertilizer-, manure-, and compost-based fertility prac-tices in an organic vegetable cropping system. Agric.,Ecosys., Environ., 127(1-2):50-58.

Fangmeier, D.D., Elliot, W.J., Workman, S.R., Huffman, R. L.and Schwab, G.O. 2006. Soil and Water ConservationEngineering, 5th edition. Thomson Delmar Learning,Thomson Corp. New York: Thomson Corp.

Garrison, M.V., Richard, T.L., Tiquia, S.M. and Honeyman,M.S. 2001. Nutrient losses from unlined bedded swinehoop structures and an associated windrow compost-ing site. ASAE Paper No. 01-2238. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.

Hach Company, 2002. Hach Water Analysis Handbook. 4thedition. Ames, IA: Hach Company.

Heathwaite, A.L., Griffiths, P. and Parkinson, R.J. 1998. Ni-trogen and phosphorus in runoff from grassland withbuffer strips following application of fertilizers and ma-nures. Soil Use Manage., 14(3):142-148.

James, E., Kleinman, P., Veith, T., Stedman, R. and Sharpley,A. 2007. Phosphorus contributions from pastured dairycattle to streams of the Cannonsville Watershed, NewYork. J. Soil Water Conserv., 62(1):40-47.

Michel, F.C., Jr., Pecchia, J.A., Rigot, J. and Keener, H.M.2004. Mass and nutrient losses during the compostingof dairy manure amended with sawdust or straw. Com-post Sci. Util., 12(4):323-334.

Parkinson, R., Gibbs, P., Burchett, S. and Misselbrook, T.2004. Effect of turning regime and seasonal weatherconditions on nitrogen and phosphorus losses duringaerobic composting of cattle manure. Biores. Technol.,91(2):171-178.

Parry, R. 1998. Agricultural phosphorus and water quality:A US Environmental Protection Agency Perspective. J.Environ. Qual., 27(2):258-261.

Peigne, J. and Girardin, P. 2004. Environmental impacts offarm-scale composting practices. Water, Air, Soil Pollu-tion, 153(1):45-68.

Richard, T.L. and Chadsey, M. 1994. Environmental Impact




Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Iow

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:41

04

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Assessment: Composting Source Separated Organics.BioCycle, 31(4):42-46.

Rynk, R., van de Kamp, M., Willson, G.B., Singley, M.E.,Richard, T.L., Kolega, J.J., Gouin, F.R., Laliberty, Jr., L.,Day, K., Murphy, D.W., Hoitink, H.A.J. and Brinton,W.F. 1992. On-Farm Composting Handbook. NRAES,Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. 186pp.

SAS Institute. 2004. Statistical Analysis System (SAS) Soft-ware and User’s Guide. Cary, NC.

Seymour, R.M. and Bourdon, M. 2003. Hydrology and nutri-ent movement of a windrow of dairy bedding/leafmulch compost. 2003 ASAE Annual International Meet-ing, Riviera Hotel and Convention Center, Las Vegas,Nevada, USA, 27-30 July 2003. ASAE Technical Library.http://asae.frymulti.com/abstract.asp?aid=14957&t=2.

Spargo, J.T., Evanylo, G.K. and Alley, M.M. 2006. Repeatedcompost application effects on phosphorus runoff in theVirginia Piedmont. J. Environ. Qual., 35(6):2342-2351.

Tiquia, S.M., Richard, T.L. and Honeyman, M.S. 2000. Effectof windrow turning and seasonal temperatures on com-posting of hog manure from hoop structures. Environ.

Tech., 20(9):1037-1046.Tiquia, S.M., Richard, T.L. and Honeyman, M.S. 2002. Car-

bon, nutrient and mass loss during composting. Nutri-ent Cycling Agric. Ecosys., 62(1):15-24.

Vervoort, R.W., Radcliffe, D.E., Cabrera, M.L. and Latimore,M., Jr. 1998. Field-scale nitrogen and phosphorus lossfrom hay fields receiving fresh and composted broilerlitter. J. Environ. Qual., 27(5):1246-1255.

Webber, D.F., Mickelson, S.K., Richard, T.L. and Ahn, H.K.2009. Effects of a livestock manure windrow compost-ing site with a fly ash pad surface and vegetative filterstrip buffers on sediment, nitrate, and phosphorus loss-es with runoff. J. Soil Water Conserv., 64(2):163-171.

Westerman, P.W., King, L.D., Burns, J.C., Cummings, G.A.and Overcash, M.R. 1987. Swine manure and lagoon ef-fluent applied to a temperate forage mixture: II. Rainfallrunoff and soil chemical properties. J. Environ. Qual.,16(2):106-112.

Wilson, B.G., Haralampides, K. and Levesque, S. 2004.Stormwater runoff from open windrow composting fa-cilities. J. Environ. Eng. Sci., 3(6):537-540.




Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Iow

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:41

04

Sept

embe

r 20

14

livestock manure windrow composting runoff and ... · -p losses during the second and final compost...

Documents