Title: Assessment of Filter Mound Media for Treating Milking Parlor and Milkhouse Liquid Wastes
1Assessment 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
5Filter 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
-
7Predecessors Surface Distribution Line Concept
Disposal with no filter treatment (bark is
insulator only)
8Predecessors Overland Flow Concept
Slim Mat Creates Migrating Failure
9Location of Filter Mound Gratiot Co.
10Key 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
11Dimensions Capacity
- Trapezoidal shape 13,000 cubic feet
200
8
5
18
12Michigan Filter Mound Concept
Pressurized Distribution Lines (4 _at_ 2 ft. o.c.)
Filter Media
- Treatment in Filter Media- Pressure Dose
Entire Area- Shed Precipitation
13Ensz Farm Filter Mound Flow Sequence
Pump chamber (1000 gal)
(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)
14Tanks Settling Pumping
Kris Foight Photo
15Pump Chamber with Pump and Float Switch
Kris Foight Photo
16Ground Preparation - Mow - Chisel Plow
- Leave Sod
Ben Foster Photo
17Hydrotek Sequencing Valve
Kris Foight Photo
18Distribution Lines from Hydrotek Valve
Kris Foight Photo
19Pressurized Distribution Line Spray Chamber
(Before Final Cover)
Ben Foster Photo
20Distribution Lines with Spray Chambers and
Clean-out Ports (Before Final Cover)
Ben Foster Photo
21Control Box
22Lysimeters and Sample Collection Sump
Kris Foight Photo
23Tested 5 Filter Media
- Shredded bark, non-aerated
- Shredded bark, passive aeration
- Wood chips
- Styrofoam chips
- (Pea stone)
24Shredded Hardwood Bark
25Aeration tubes under 1 bark bed
26Hardwood Chips
27Styrofoam Chips
28Styrofoam in bundles
29Pea stone
30Finished Ground View Looking Northeast
Passive Aeration Tubes
Kris Foight Photo
31Operated for 34 months Sept. 2005 to July 2008.
Monitored for 128 weeks.
32Sampling Schematic
- 3 lysimeters draining to sampling sump, at 2
below distribution lines, bedsoil interface, and
2 below soil surface
33Sampled effluent 12 locations within mound
Aerated Bark
Wood Chips
Bark
Styrofoam
(Longitudinal view not to scale)
34Sampling hang 1 L bottles, overnight
35Retrieving sample collection bottles
36Analyses
- COD NO3 NO2
- Total P Chloride
- E. coli Sulfate
- Iron pH
- Manganese Oil grease
- Ammonia Conductivity
- TSS TOC
37Effluent 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
38Effluent Characteristics
- Chloride 531 mg/L
- Sulfate 14 mg/L
- Oil grease 63 mg/L
- Conductivity 3,136 µS/cm
- pH 6.6
39Early hint of differences
Aerated Bark
Bark
Wood Chips
Styrofoam
Effluent
40Data for BedSoil interface
Aerated Bark
Wood Chips
Bark
Styrofoam
(Longitudinal view not to scale)
41A problem at 50 weeks effluent increased 50
42Bark Aerated bark gtgt Wood chip Styrofoam
43Variable Wood chip Aerated bark gt Bark
Styrofoam
44Bark Aerated bark gt Wood chip gt Styrofoam but
Wood chip Styrofoam improving over time
45Bark Aerated bark gt Wood chip Styrofoam
46Bark Aerated bark gtgt Wood chip Styrofoam
47Groundwater parameters data from subsurface
samples
Aerated Bark
Wood Chips
Bark
Styrofoam
(Longitudinal view not to scale)
48Bark lt Aerated bark Wood chip Styrofoam
49Bark Wood chip Styrofoam ltlt Aerated bark
50Other 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
51Other Media
- Pea stone
- installed after effluent volume increased 50
- similar to Styrofoam minimal treatment
52Maintenance Problem Filter Clogging
53Maintenance Problem Filter brush clogging
54Maintenance Problem Solids in distribution line
55Problem Bacterial mat under distribution pipe
56Problem Minimal lateral dispersion within
Styrofoam bed other media, too?
57Problem bark compacted
58Problem compaction broken line
59Problem pooling water off pea gravel bed due
to soil compaction
60Conclusions
- 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
61Future
- 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
62Contacts
- Monitoring Joe Rathbun rathbunj_at_michigan.gov
- Design Thad Cleary clearyt_at_michigan.gov
- or Steve Davis steve.davis_at_mi.usda.gov
- Thanks!!