Assessment of Filter Mound Media for Treating Milking Parlor and Milkhouse Liquid Wastes

1
Assessment of Filter Mound Media for Treating
Milking Parlor and Milkhouse Liquid Wastes

• Joe Rathbun, MDEQ
• Thad Cleary, MDEQ
• Kristine Foight, USDA-ARS
• Steve Davis, USDA-NRCS

2

• Milking Parlor Milkhouse Wastewater on Small
  Dairy Farms in Michigan
• All dairy farms have it
• 3-10 gal/cow/day
• Low concentrations of milk residue, manure, and
  food grade cleansers
• Many small farms handling it improperly, or land
  apply
• 90 of MI dairy farms lt200 cows
• Older, lower investment facilities
• Septic tank most common disposal method

3

• Alternatives for Disposal
• Include in liquid manure storage
• Not viable if no liquid storage
• Conventional septic system
• Clogging or failure from milk fats suspended
  solids
• Daily haul application
• Labor intensive
• Higher potential for runoff in application area
  especially during wet or freezing weather

4

• Project Start
• June 2004 - NRCS-Michigan, MDEQ, MDA, and MSU
  representatives start a Technical Workgroup to
  evaluate livestock operation wastewater treatment
  alternatives through monitored field trials
• Wastewater Treatment Strips
• Filter Mounds

5
Filter Mound Workgroup Partners

• Michigan Dept. Environmental Quality
• U.S. DA NRCS - Michigan
• Michigan State University
• MSU-Extension
• Michigan Dept. Agriculture
• Michigan Milk Producers Association
• Clinton Conservation District
• Michigan Land Improvement Contractors of America
• Michigan Farm Bureau

6

• Characteristics of Desired Alternatives for
  Disposal
• Functions equally well in all seasons
• Low investment
• Low maintenance
• Environmentally acceptable
• Filter mound concept appears
• to address these characteristics

7
Predecessors Surface Distribution Line Concept
Disposal with no filter treatment (bark is
insulator only)
8
Predecessors Overland Flow Concept
Slim Mat Creates Migrating Failure
9
Location of Filter Mound Gratiot Co.
10
Key Numbers for Demonstration/Research Filter
Mound

• 200 cows, milked twice per day
• Wastewater production 1,000
  gal/day
• Distribution Area
• 4 Sections 8 ft. x 50 ft each
• Dosing schedule
• Pump on once per hour
• Each section receives dosing 6 times per day
• Dosing rate 0.5 gal/sq.ft./day

11
Dimensions Capacity

• Trapezoidal shape 13,000 cubic feet

200
8
5
18
12
Michigan Filter Mound Concept
Pressurized Distribution Lines (4 _at_ 2 ft. o.c.)
Filter Media
- Treatment in Filter Media- Pressure Dose
Entire Area- Shed Precipitation
13
Ensz Farm Filter Mound Flow Sequence
Pump chamber (1000 gal)

• Milking Center

(gravity)
(pressure)
Existing settling tank (1000 gal)
Hydrotek sequencing valve
(gravity)
(gravity)
(pressure)
Settling tank (1000 gal)
Distribution lines
(gravity)
(pressure)
Settling tank (1500 gal)
Filter mound
(gravity)
(gravity)
Ground
Settling tank (1500 gal)
14
Tanks Settling Pumping
Kris Foight Photo
15
Pump Chamber with Pump and Float Switch
Kris Foight Photo
16
Ground Preparation - Mow - Chisel Plow
- Leave Sod
Ben Foster Photo
17
Hydrotek Sequencing Valve
Kris Foight Photo
18
Distribution Lines from Hydrotek Valve
Kris Foight Photo
19
Pressurized Distribution Line Spray Chamber
(Before Final Cover)
Ben Foster Photo
20
Distribution Lines with Spray Chambers and
Clean-out Ports (Before Final Cover)
Ben Foster Photo
21
Control Box
22
Lysimeters and Sample Collection Sump
Kris Foight Photo
23
Tested 5 Filter Media

• Shredded bark, non-aerated
• Shredded bark, passive aeration
• Wood chips
• Styrofoam chips
• (Pea stone)

24
Shredded Hardwood Bark
25
Aeration tubes under 1 bark bed
26
Hardwood Chips
27
Styrofoam Chips
28
Styrofoam in bundles
29
Pea stone
30
Finished Ground View Looking Northeast
Passive Aeration Tubes
Kris Foight Photo
31
Operated for 34 months Sept. 2005 to July 2008.
Monitored for 128 weeks.
32
Sampling Schematic

• 3 lysimeters draining to sampling sump, at 2
  below distribution lines, bedsoil interface, and
  2 below soil surface

33
Sampled effluent 12 locations within mound
Aerated Bark
Wood Chips
Bark
Styrofoam
(Longitudinal view not to scale)
34
Sampling hang 1 L bottles, overnight
35
Retrieving sample collection bottles
36
Analyses

• COD NO3 NO2
• Total P Chloride
• E. coli Sulfate
• Iron pH
• Manganese Oil grease
• Ammonia Conductivity
• TSS TOC

37
Effluent Characteristics

• COD 2,246 mg/L
• Total P 44 mg/L
• E. coli 2,790,000 CFU/100 mL
• NH3 105 mg/L
• NO3NO2 lt 2 mg/L
• TSS 573 mg/L
• TOC 643 mg/L

38
Effluent Characteristics

• Chloride 531 mg/L
• Sulfate 14 mg/L
• Oil grease 63 mg/L
• Conductivity 3,136 µS/cm
• pH 6.6

39
Early hint of differences
Aerated Bark
Bark
Wood Chips
Styrofoam
Effluent
40
Data for BedSoil interface
Aerated Bark
Wood Chips
Bark
Styrofoam
(Longitudinal view not to scale)
41
A problem at 50 weeks effluent increased 50
42
Bark Aerated bark gtgt Wood chip Styrofoam
43
Variable Wood chip Aerated bark gt Bark
Styrofoam
44
Bark Aerated bark gt Wood chip gt Styrofoam but
Wood chip Styrofoam improving over time
45
Bark Aerated bark gt Wood chip Styrofoam
46
Bark Aerated bark gtgt Wood chip Styrofoam
47
Groundwater parameters data from subsurface
samples
Aerated Bark
Wood Chips
Bark
Styrofoam
(Longitudinal view not to scale)
48
Bark lt Aerated bark Wood chip Styrofoam
49
Bark Wood chip Styrofoam ltlt Aerated bark
50
Other Parameters

• NO3 NO2 lt DL in effluent beds
• Conductivity no removal
• Chloride no removal
• Sulfate often lt DL no removal
• Oil grease almost always lt DL
• TOC comparably variable
• pH effluent 6.6 beds 7 8.5

51
Other Media

• Pea stone
• installed after effluent volume increased 50
• similar to Styrofoam minimal treatment

52
Maintenance Problem Filter Clogging
53
Maintenance Problem Filter brush clogging
54
Maintenance Problem Solids in distribution line
55
Problem Bacterial mat under distribution pipe
56
Problem Minimal lateral dispersion within
Styrofoam bed other media, too?
57
Problem bark compacted
58
Problem compaction broken line
59
Problem pooling water off pea gravel bed due
to soil compaction
60
Conclusions

• Bark is an effective treatment media for
  phosphorus, bacteria, ammonia, TSS better than
  wood chips, Styrofoam or pea stone
• Bark doesnt break down over a couple years at
  least (last 5 years??)
• Metal leaching from soil potential problem for
  ground water
• Recommended settling volume 3-4 times daily
  waste volume
• Cost 25,000

61
Future

• Farm installed a new bark bed
• Other interest from commercial vendors looking
  to build 2 more bark beds
• Hope to write NRCS Standard in order to include
  in U.S. DA cost share programs
• Wet weather treatment strip assessment in
  progress, for feedlot silage bunker runoff

62
Contacts

• Monitoring Joe Rathbun rathbunj_at_michigan.gov
• Design Thad Cleary clearyt_at_michigan.gov
• or Steve Davis steve.davis_at_mi.usda.gov
• Thanks!!