Impact of system management on vegetative treatment system effluent concentrations

Andersen, Daniel S.; Burns, Robert T.; Moody, Lara B.; Helmers, Matthew J.; Bond, Brad; Khanijo, Ishadeep; Pederson, Carl H.

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.03.046

Cited by 8 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Active systems have also been proposed and evaluated that include valves, pumps, or sprinkler systems to manage and apply runoff to the vegetated areas (Bond et al, 2010;Henry, 2007, 2010;Koelsch et al, 2006;Melvin and Lorimor, 2007;Moody et al, 2006;Ostrem et al, 2010;Powers et al, 2010) Berry et al (2007) evaluated a passive, gravity-fed brome grass VTS and found that bacterial and protozoal pathogen numbers generally declined over time, although some manure-borne bacteria were able to survive in the soil for extended periods. Andersen et al (2013) evaluated the performance of six commercial VTS in Iowa for nutrient parameters; however, microbial data were not collected in that study. In general, the efficacy of VTS for fecal coliform removal is not clear, and few studies have been conducted to study large-scale VTS performance (Koelsch et al, 2006).…”

Section: Evaluation Of Fecal Indicators and Pathogens In A Beef Cattlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Vegetation from the VTA is harvested as hay by the feedlot owner. Any remaining applied runoff or tail water from a treatment cell was returned to the pump station by way of an intake structure and underground pipe (Andersen et al, 2013;Powers et al, 2010). This VTS was permitted under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting program (Gustafson et al, 2006;USEPA, 2008) using an alternative performance criteria specified in Section 40, part 412 of the Code of Federal Regulations documenting that it was functionally equivalent for regulatory purposes to conventional runoff retention ponds (Bond et al, 2011).…”

Section: Vegetative Treatment Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of Fecal Indicators and Pathogens in a Beef Cattle Feedlot Vegetative Treatment System

Durso¹,

Miller²,

Snow

et al. 2017

J of Env Quality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Runoff from open-lot animal feeding areas contains microorganisms that may adversely affect human and animal health if not properly managed. One alternative to full manure containment systems is a vegetative treatment system (VTS) that collects runoff in a sediment basin and then applies it to a perennial vegetation (grass) treatment area that is harvested for hay. Little is known regarding the efficacy of large-scale commercial VTSs for the removal of microbial contaminants. In this study, an active, pump-based VTS designed and built for a 1200-head beef cattle feedlot operation was examined to determine the effects of repeated feedlot runoff application on fecal indicator microorganisms and pathogens over shortterm (2 wk) and long-term (3 yr) operations and whether fecal bacteria were infiltrating into deeper soils within the treatment area. In a short-term study, fecal bacteria and pathogen numbers declined over time in soil. Measurements of total coliforms and Enterococcus counts taken on control soils were not effective as fecal indicators. The repeated application of manure-impacted runoff as irrigation water did not enrich the pathogens or fecal indicators in the soil, and no evidence was seen to indicate that pathogens were moving into the deeper soil at this site. These results indicate that large-scale, active VTSs reduce the potential for environmental contamination by manure-associated bacteria. Also, this study has implications to full-containment systems that apply runoff water to land application areas (cropland) and the fate of pathogens in the soils of land application sites.

show abstract

Section: Evaluation Of Fecal Indicators and Pathogens In A Beef Cattlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Vegetative Treatment Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Fecal Indicators and Pathogens in a Beef Cattle Feedlot Vegetative Treatment System

Durso¹,

Miller²,

Snow

et al. 2017

J of Env Quality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The mean concentration of TP was 35.3 mg L -1 (coefficient of variation of 43%), and the mean concentration of TN was 85.7 mg L -1 (coefficient of variation of 38%). Andersen et al (2013) measured the water quality characteristics of runoff from settling basins located below six open lot feedlots located throughout Iowa. The mean annual concentrations of TP measured over three-or four-year study periods varied from 53 to 179 mg L -1 , and the mean value for the six feedlots was 87 mg L -1 .…”

Section: Comparison Of Results With Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nutrient Concentrations of Runoff as Affected by the Diameter of Unconsolidated Material from Feedlot Surfaces

Gilley

Boone²,

Marx³

2014

Trans. ASABE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Beef cattle feedlots contain unconsolidated material that accumulates on the feedlot surface during a feeding cycle. This study was conducted to measure the effects of varying diameters of unconsolidated surface material and varying flow rates on nutrient concentrations in runoff. Unconsolidated surface material with an average diameter of 4.76, 9.53, 19.1, or 47.5 mm and a composite sample with a 15.2 mm mean diameter were placed within 0.75 m wide × 4.0 m long plot areas. Flow was then introduced at the top of the plots in successive increments, and runoff samples for water quality analyses were obtained. Particle diameter significantly influenced runoff concentrations of dissolved phosphorus (DP), particulate phosphorus (PP), total phosphorus (TP), NH 4-N, and solids transport.

show abstract

“…Concentrations of organic nitrogen (ON = TKN -NH 3 -N) and total nitrogen (TN = TKN + NO 3 -N) were calculated based on monitored concentrations. Summaries of the effluent concentrations in the outflow from each VTS component at each site are provided by Andersen et al (2013). Nutrient loadings onto the VIBs and VTAs were calculated by multiplying the inflows and outflows from each event times the nutrient concentration measured for that event and dividing by the area of the VTA.…”

Section: Monitoring Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Maps showing locations of the wells in relation to the feedlot and VTS locations are shown in figure 1. Full descriptions of these sites are provided by Andersen et al (2013); brief descriptions are provided here.…”

Section: Site Descriptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vegetative Treatment System Impacts on Groundwater Quality

2014

Trans.ASABE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increased environmental awareness has prompted the need for improved feedlot runoff control. Vegetative treatment systems (VTSs) provide a cost-effective option that may enhance environmental security by protecting water quality. Vegetative treatment systems are typically designed on the basis of hydraulic performance, which may result in excess application of some nutrients, specifically nitrogen and phosphorus. Groundwater quality monitoring is required to determine the effect, if any, that VTSs have on groundwater. Shallow groundwater (2 to 10 m) quality beneath six VTSs in Iowa was monitored over a four-year period. Monitoring wells were located upgradient, within, and downgradient of the VTSs. Groundwater samples were collected on a monthly basis and analyzed for ammoniacal nitrogen, chloride, nitrate-nitrogen, and fecal coliforms. A trend analysis was conducted to evaluate groundwater response patterns to VTS construction and use. In general, monitoring wells located within and downgradient of the VTS showed increasing trends in chloride and decreasing trends in nitrate concentrations. No trends for fecal coliforms or ammoniacal nitrogen were seen. Statistical analysis was performed to test for concentration differences between upgradient, within, and downgradient monitoring wells. In general, no differences in ammoniacal nitrogen concentration were seen. Fecal coliform concentrations were generally highest at the monitoring well within the VTS, but no difference was found between upgradient and downgradient concentrations. Chloride concentrations were generally significantly higher within and downgradient of the VTS when compared to the upgradient well; nitrate concentrations were generally significantly lower within and downgradient of the VTA than upgradient.

show abstract

Impact of system management on vegetative treatment system effluent concentrations

Cited by 8 publications

References 28 publications

Evaluation of Fecal Indicators and Pathogens in a Beef Cattle Feedlot Vegetative Treatment System

Evaluation of Fecal Indicators and Pathogens in a Beef Cattle Feedlot Vegetative Treatment System

Nutrient Concentrations of Runoff as Affected by the Diameter of Unconsolidated Material from Feedlot Surfaces

Vegetative Treatment System Impacts on Groundwater Quality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About