United States
`Department of
`Agriculture
`
`Natural
`Resources
`Conservation
`Service
`
`Part 651
`Agricultural Waste Management Field
`Handbook
`
`Chapter 4
`
`Agricultural Waste
`Characteristics
`
`(210–VI–AWMFH, March 2008)
`
`Exhibit 1059
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 1 of 40
`
`

`

`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)
`
`Exhibit 1059
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 2 of 40
`
`

`

`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 of Darren
`Hickman, national environmental engineer, Conservation Engineering
`Division, Washington, DC.
`
`(210–VI–AWMFH, March 2008)
`
`4–i
`
`Exhibit 1059
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 3 of 40
`
`

`

`Chapter 4
`
`Agricultural Waste Characteristics
`
`Part 651
`Agricultural Waste Management
`Field Handbook
`
`4–ii
`
`(210–VI–AWMFH, March 2008)
`
`Exhibit 1059
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 4 of 40
`
`

`

`Chapter 4
`
`Agricultural Waste Characteristics
`
`Contents:
`
`651.0400
`
`4–1
`Introduction
`(a) Purpose and scope ...........................................................................................4–1
`(b) Variations and ranges of data values .............................................................4–2
`
`651.0401 Definitions of waste characterization terms
`
`651.0402 Units of measure
`
`4–2
`
`4–8
`
`4–9
`651.0403 Animal waste characteristics
`(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
`
`Exhibit 1059
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 5 of 40
`
`

`

`Chapter 4
`
`Agricultural Waste Characteristics
`
`Part 651
`Agricultural Waste Management
`Field Handbook
`
`Table 4–1
`
`Definitions and descriptions of waste characterization
`terms
`
`4–3
`
`Table 4–2
`
`Factors for determining nutrient equivalency
`
`Table 4–3
`
`Unit weights of common bedding materials
`
`Table 4–4
`
`Daily bedding requirements for dairy cattle
`
`Table 4–5
`
`Dairy manure characterization—as excreted
`
`Table 4–6
`
`Dairy water use for various operations
`
`Table 4–7
`
`Dairy waste characterization—milking center
`
`Table 4–8
`
`Beef waste characterization—as excreted
`
`Table 4–9
`
`Nitrogen content of cattle feedlot runoff
`
`Table 4–10
`
`Swine waste characterization—as excreted
`
`Table 4–11
`
`Poultry waste characterization—as excreted
`
`Table 4–12
`
`Veal waste characterization—as excreted
`
`Table 4–13
`
`Lamb waste characterization—as excreted
`
`Table 4–14
`
`Horse waste characterization—as excreted
`
`Table 4–15
`
`Rabbit waste characterization—as excreted
`
`Table 4–16 Manure as transferred for utilization
`
`Table 4–17
`
`Human waste characterization—as excreted
`
`Table 4–18
`
`Residential waste characterization—household
`wastewater
`
`Table 4–19 Municipal waste characterization—residential
`
`Table 4–20
`
`Dairy food processing waste characterization
`
`Table 4–21
`
`Dairy food waste characterization—processing
`wastewater
`
`4–9
`
`4–11
`
`4–11
`
`4–13
`
`4–14
`
`4–14
`
`4–15
`
`4–16
`
`4–17
`
`4–19
`
`4–22
`
`4–22
`
`4–22
`
`4–23
`
`4–24
`
`4–26
`
`4–26
`
`4–27
`
`4–27
`
`4–28
`
`Table 4–22 Meat processing waste characterization—wastewater
`
`4–28
`
`4–iv
`
`(210–VI–AWMFH, March 2008)
`
`Exhibit 1059
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 6 of 40
`
`

`

`Chapter 4
`
`Agricultural Waste Characteristics
`
`Part 651
`Agricultural Waste Management
`Field Handbook
`
`Table 4–23 Meat processing waste characterization—wastewater
`sludge
`
`Table 4–24
`
`Vegetable processing waste characterization—waste-
`water
`
`Table 4–25
`
`Fruit and vegetable waste characterization—solid
`waste
`
`Table 4–26
`
`Typical range of nutrient concentrations in silage
`leachate
`
`Table 4–27
`
`Leachate production based on percent dry matter
`of silage
`
`4–29
`
`4–29
`
`4–30
`
`4–31
`
`4–31
`
`Figures
`
`Figure 4–1 Mass balance approach used for developing table
`values for beef cattle, swine, and poultry
`
`4–1
`
`(210–VI–AWMFH, March 2008)
`
`4–v
`
`Exhibit 1059
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 7 of 40
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1059
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page & of 40
`
`Exhibit 1059
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 8 of 40
`
`

`

`Chapter 4
`
`Agricultural Waste Characteristics
`
`651.0400
`
`Introduction
`
`(a) Purpose and scope
`
`Wastes and residues described in this chapter are of an
`organic nature and agricultural origin. Other by-products
`of nonagricultural origin that may be managed within the
`agricultural sector are also included. This chapter pro-
`vides information for estimating characteristics of live-
`stock and poultry manure and other agricultural residu-
`als. The information provided is useful for the planning
`and design of agricultural waste management system
`(AWMS) components including:
`
`• storage function components such as ponds and
`
`tanks
`
`• treatment function components such as lagoons
`
`and composting
`
`• utilization function components such as land ap-
`
`plication
`
`The information may also be useful in formulating the
`environmental impact of manure and other agricultural
`wastes.
`
`This chapter includes table values for the typical charac-
`teristics of manure as excreted by livestock and poultry
`based on typical diets and animal performance levels in
`2003. These typical values are most appropriate for use
`when:
`
`• planning estimates are being made on a scale larger
`
`than a single farm such as county or regional esti-
`mate of nutrient excretion
`
`• a rough estimate is needed for farm planning
`
`• farm-specific information of animal performance
`
`and feed intake is not available
`
`Much of the as excreted data included in the tables of
`this chapter were developed using equations that are
`now available for predicting manure content, primar-
`ily nitrogen and phosphorus, dry matter, and, depend-
`ing upon species, other potential characteristics for beef,
`swine, and poultry excretion. The fundamental model
`(fig. 4–1) on which these equations are based is:
`
`Nutrient excretion = Nutrient feed intake – Nutrient retention
`
`Dry matter excretion Feed dry matter intake
`
`=
`
`×
`
`
`(
`
`−1
`
`dry matter
`
`
`
`digestibility
`
`) +
`
` Dry matter in urine
`
`(210–VI–AWMFH, March 2008)
`
`Nutrient retention by animal or in the
`animal’s products such as eggs or milk
`
`Of the total excreted solids, dry matter in urine typically
`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
`options and animal performance levels commonly ob-
`served in commercial production. Considered are fac-
`tors related to the feed efficiency in animal performance
`and to feed intake including crude protein, phospho-
`rus, and dry matter. A full presentation and description
`of these equations is beyond the scope of this chapter.
`They are, however, available in the American Society of
`Agricultural and Biological Engineers Standard D384.2.
`See http://www.asabe.org/standards/index.html.
`
`For dairy and horses, regression analysis was performed
`on large data sets to determine appropriate equations.
`
`In a number of situations, consideration should be giv-
`en to using equations instead of the as excreted values
`presented in the tables of this chapter. Typical or aver-
`age estimates of as excreted manure eventually become
`out-of-date due to changes in animal genetics, perfor-
`mance potential, feeding program strategies, and avail-
`able feeds. If the timeliness of the data presented in this
`chapter becomes problematic, consideration should be
`given to computing values using equations. Other situ-
`ations when use of equations should be considered are
`when:
`
`• comprehensive nutrient management plans are
`
`being developed specific to a farm and its AWMS
`
`• data is available for a livestock or poultry opera-
`tion’s feeding program and animal performance
`
`• a feeding strategy or technology designed to re-
`
`duce nutrient excretion is being used
`
`v i
`iJ
`
`nutrient
`intake
`
`Food
`
`-
`
`=
`
`Nutrient
`excretion
`
`Figure 4–1 Mass balance approach used for developing
`table values for beef cattle, swine, and poultry
`
`Feed nutrient intake
`
`Exhibit 1059
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 9 of 40
`
`

`

`Chapter 4
`
`Agricultural Waste Characteristics
`
`Part 651
`Agricultural Waste Management
`Field Handbook
`
`The chapter also provides table values for the typical
`characteristics of manure at transfer from housing or
`from storage and treatment facilities. These values are
`useful for long-term planning for utilization of manure
`and other wastes; but, they should not be used in deter-
`mining a field-specific application rate.
`
`(b) Variations and ranges of data values
`
`In most cases, a single value is presented for a specif-
`ic waste characteristic. This value is presented as a rea-
`sonable value for facility design and equipment selection
`for situations where site-specific data are not avail-
`able. Waste characteristics are subject to wide variation;
`both greater and lesser values than those presented can
`be expected. Therefore, much attention is given in this
`chapter to describing the reasons for data variation and
`to giving planners and designers a basis for seeking and
`establishing more appropriate values where justified by
`the situation.
`
`Site-specific waste sampling, testing, and data collection
`are essential for the utilization function of an AWMS.
`Such sampling can result in greater certainty and con-
`fidence in amount of nutrients available. Care must be
`exercised to assure that samples are representative of
`the waste stream and arrive at the laboratory in a time-
`ly manner. Since manure and other waste products are
`in continual flux, it must also be kept in mind that the re-
`sults from such testing are only valid for the time when
`the samples were taken.
`
`651.0401 Definitions of waste
`characterization terms
`
`Table 4–1 contains definitions and descriptions of waste
`characterization terms. It includes abbreviations, defini-
`tions, units of measurement, methods of measurement,
`and other considerations for the physical and chemical
`properties of manure, waste, and residue. The physical
`properties—weight (Wt), volume (Vol), moisture content
`(MC), total solids (TS), volatile solids (VS), fixed solids
`(FS), dissolved solids (DS), and suspended solids (SS)—
`are important to agricultural producers and facility plan-
`ners and designers. They describe the amount and con-
`sistency of the material to be dealt with by equipment
`and in treatment and storage facilities. Of the chemical
`constituents, nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potas-
`sium (K) are of great value to waste systems planners,
`producers, and designers. Land application of agricultur-
`al waste is the primary waste utilization procedure, and
`N, P, and K are the principal components considered in
`development of an agricultural waste management plan.
`
`Volatile solids (VS) and 5-day Biochemical Oxygen
`Demand (BOD5) are used in the planning and design of
`certain biological treatment procedures.
`
`Data on biological properties, such as numbers of spe-
`cific micro-organisms, are not presented in this chapter.
`Micro-organisms are of concern as possible pollutants
`of ground and surface water, but they are not commonly
`used as a design factor for no-discharge waste manage-
`ment systems that use wastes on agricultural land.
`
`When expressed in units of pounds per day or as a con-
`centration, various solid fractions of manure, waste, or
`residue are often measured on a wet weight basis (%
`w.b.), a percentage of the “as is” or wet weight of the ma-
`terial. In some cases, however, data are recorded on a
`dry weight basis (% d.w.), a percentage of the dry weight
`of the material. The difference in these two values for
`a specific material is most likely very large. Nutrient
`and other chemical fractions of a waste material, ex-
`pressed as a concentration, may be on a wet weight or
`dry weight basis, or expressed as pounds per 1,000 gal-
`lons of waste.
`
`The term “agricultural waste” was coined by those who
`pioneered the technology. For them, the term seemed
`appropriate because it was generic and could be used in
`the context of the wide variety of materials under con-
`
`4–2
`
`(210–VI–AWMFH, March 2008)
`
`Exhibit 1059
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 10 of 40
`
`

`

`Chapter 4
`
`Agricultural Waste Characteristics
`
`Part 651
`Agricultural Waste Management
`Field Handbook
`
`Table 4–1 Definitions and descriptions of waste characterization terms
`
`Physical characteristics
`
`Abbreviation Units of
`measure
`
`Definition
`
`Method of
`measurement
`
`Remarks
`
`Term
`
`Weight
`
`Volume
`
`Moisture
`content
`
`Wt
`
`Vol
`
`MC
`
`Total solids
`
`TS
`
`Volatile solids VS, TVS
`
`Fixed solids
`
`FS, TFS
`
`lb
`
`ft3; gal
`
`%
`
`%,
`% w.b. 1/;
`% d.w. 2/;
`
`%,
`% w,b. 1/;
`% d.w. 2/;
`
`%,
`% w.b.; %
`d.w.
`
`Quantity or mass
`
`Scale or balance
`
`Space occupied in cubic
`units
`
`Place in or compare to container
`of known volume calculate from
`dimensions of containment facility
`
`That part of a waste
`material removed by
`evaporation and oven
`drying at 217 °F
`(103 °C)
`
`Evaporate free water on steam
`table and dry in oven at 217 °F
`for 24 hours or until constant
`weight
`
`Moisture content (%)
`plus total solids (%)
`equals 100%
`
`Residue remaining
`after water is removed
`from waste material by
`evaporation; dry matter
`
`Evaporate free water on steam
`table and dry in oven at 217 °F
`for 24 hours or until constant
`weight
`
`That part of total solids
`driven off as volatile
`(combustible) gases
`when heated to 1,112 °F
`(600 °C); organic matter
`
`That part of total solids
`remaining after volatile
`gases driven off at 1,112
`°F (600 °C); ash
`
`Place total solids residue in furnace
`at 1,112 °F for at least
`1 hour
`
`Weight (mass) of residue after
`volatile solids have been removed
`as combustible gases when heated
`at 1,112 °F for at least 1 hr is
`determined
`
`Pass a measured quantity of
`waste material through 0.45
`micron filter using appropriate
`procedure; evaporate filtrate and
`dry residue to constant weight at
`217 ºF
`
`Total of volatile and
`fixed solids; total
`of suspended and
`dissolved solids
`
`Volatile solids
`determined from
`difference of total
`and fixed solids
`
`Fixed solids equal
`total solids minus
`volatile solids
`
`Total dissolved
`solids (TDS) may be
`further analyzed for
`volatile solids and
`fixed dissolved solids
`parts %
`
`Total suspended
`solids may be further
`analyzed for volatile
`and fixed suspended
`solids parts
`
`Dissolved
`solids
`
`DS; TDS
`
`DS, TDS
`
`%,
`% w.b.;
`% d.w.
`
`That part of total solids
`passing through the filter
`in a filtration procedure
`
`Suspended
`solids
`
`SS, TSS
`
`%,
`% w.b.;
`% d.w.
`
`That part of total solids
`removed by a filtration
`procedure
`
`May be determined by difference
`between total solids and dissolved
`solids
`
`1/ % w.b. = percent wet basis
`2/ % d.w. = percent dry weight basis
`
`(210–VI–AWMFH, March 2008)
`
`4–3
`
`Exhibit 1059
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 11 of 40
`
`

`

`Chapter 4
`
`Agricultural Waste Characteristics
`
`Part 651
`Agricultural Waste Management
`Field Handbook
`
`Table 4–1 Definitions and descriptions of waste characterization terms—Continued
`
`Chemical properties
`
`Term
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Ammoniacal
`nitrogen (total
`ammonia)
`
`Ammonia
`nitrogen
`
`NH3-N
`
`Ammonium
`nitrogen
`
`NH4-N
`
`Total Kjeldahl
`nitrogen
`
`TKN
`
`Nitrate nitro-
`gen
`
`NO3-N
`
`µg/L
`
`mg/L
`µg/L
`
`mg/L
`µg/L
`
`mg/L
`µg/L
`
`mg/L
`µg/L
`
`Total nitrogen
`
`TN; N
`
`%; lb
`
`Phosphorus
`
`TP,
`SRP
`P
`P2O5
`
`mg
`mg/L
`lb
`lb
`
`Units of
`measure
`mg/L
`
`Definition
`
`Both NH3 and NH4
`nitrogen compounds
`
`Method of
`measurement
`Common laboratory pro-
`cedure uses digestion, ox-
`idation, and reduction to
`convert all or selected ni-
`trogen forms to ammo-
`nium that is released and
`measured as ammonia
`
`Digestion process which
`converts all organic nitro-
`gen to ammonia
`
`Laboratory procedure
`uses digestion and/or re-
`duction to convert phos-
`phorus to a colored com-
`plex; result measured by
`spectrophotometer or in-
`ductive coupled plasma
`
`Remarks
`
`Volatile and mobile nutri-
`ents; may be a limiting nu-
`trient in land spreading of
`wastes and in eutrophica-
`tion. Recommended meth-
`ods of manure analysis
`measures ammonium nitro-
`gen (NH4-N)
`Can become attached to
`the soil or used by plants or
`microbes
`
`Nitrogen in this form can
`be lost by denitrification,
`percolation, runoff, and
`plant microbial utilization
`
`Macro-nutrient for plants
`
`Critical in water pollution
`control; may be a limiting
`nutrient in eutrophication
`and in spreading of wastes
`
`A gaseous form of
`ammoniacal nitrogen
`
`The positively ionized
`(cation) form of
`ammoniacal nitrogen
`The sum of organic
`nitrogen and ammoniacal
`nitrogen
`The negatively ionized
`(anion) form of
`nitrogen that is highly mo-
`bile
`
`The summation of
`nitrogen from all the vari-
`ous nitrogen
`compounds
`Total phosphorus (TP)
`is a measure of all the
`forms of phosphorus, dis-
`solved or particulate,
`that is found in a sample.
`Soluble reactive phospho-
`rus (SRP) is a measure of
`orthophosphate, the filter-
`able (soluble, inorganic)
`fraction of phosphorus,
`the form directly taken up
`by plant cells. P is elemen-
`tal phosphorus. P2O5 is the
`fertilizer equivalent phos-
`phorus
`
`5-day
`Biochemical
`oxygen
`demand
`
`Chemical
`oxygen
`demand
`
`4–4
`
`BOD5
`
`lb of O2
`
`COD
`
`lb of O2
`
`Measure of oxygen con-
`suming capacity of or-
`ganic and some inorganic
`components of waste ma-
`terials
`
`Extensive laboratory
`procedure of incubating
`waste sample in oxygen-
`ated water for 5 days and
`measuring amount of dis-
`solved oxygen consumed
`Relatively rapid laborato-
`ry procedure using chemi-
`cal oxidants and heat to
`fully oxidize organic com-
`ponents of waste
`
`Standard test for measuring
`pollution potential of waste
`
`Estimate of total oxygen
`that could be consumed in
`oxidation of waste material
`
`(210–VI–AWMFH, March 2008)
`
`12
`
`Exhibit 1059
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 12 of 40
`
`

`

`Chapter 4
`
`Agricultural Waste Characteristics
`
`Part 651
`Agricultural Waste Management
`Field Handbook
`
`can have a specific weight of as much as 105 percent that
`of water. Some dry wastes, such as litter, that have sig-
`nificant void space can have specific weight of much less
`than that of water. Assuming that wet and moist wastes
`weigh 60 to 65 pounds per cubic foot is a convenient and
`useful estimate for planning waste management systems.
`
`Because moisture content of manure is transitory, most
`testing laboratories report results in terms of dry weight
`(d.w.). However, equipment is calibrated and storage
`structures sized based upon wet weight. As such, it is
`important to understand the relationship of wet basis
`(w.b.) and dry basis (d.w.).
`
`When test data is reported in terms of its wet basis, the
`base is its hydrated weight.
`
`Percent wet basis =
`
`weight of constituent
`wet weight of samplle
`
`When test data is reported in terms of its dry weight, the
`base is its dry weight.
`
`Percent dry basis =
`
`weight of constituent
`dry weight of samplle
`
`Residue after oven drying the sample is the total solids.
`Since the dry weight is equal to the total solids, they are
`always 100 percent d.w.
`
`The fixed solids are the nonorganic portion of the total
`solids. The weight of fixed solids is determined by a test
`that involves heating a sample of the waste to 1,112 °F.
`The fixed solids are the ash that remains after the mate-
`rial driven off by the heating is the volatile solids.
`
`sideration. Now, the concern of many is that the word
`waste implies that the material is only suitable for dis-
`posal and as such, detracts from proper utilization. Even
`though another word or term might better convey the
`beneficial aspects, agricultural waste is so entrenched
`in the literature it would now be difficult to change.
`Further, a consensus replacement term that is appro-
`priate in every context has not come to the forefront.
`It must be understood that it was neither the intent of
`those who initially developed the technology nor the
`authors of this chapter (with its continued use) to im-
`ply the materials being discussed are worthless and are
`only suitable for disposal. Rather, the materials are to be
`viewed as having value both monetarily and environmen-
`tally if properly managed, regardless of what they are
`called.
`
`Wastes are often given descriptive names that reflect
`their moisture content such as liquid, slurry, semisolid
`and solid. Wastes that have a moisture content of 95 per-
`cent or more exhibit qualities very much like water are
`called liquid waste or liquid manure. Wastes that have
`moisture content of about 75 percent or less exhibit the
`properties of a solid and can be stacked and hold a def-
`inite angle of repose. These are called solid manure or
`solid waste. Wastes that are between about 75 and 95
`percent moisture content (25 and 5 percent solids) are
`semiliquid (slurry) or semisolid (chapter 9). Because
`wastes are heterogeneous and inconsistent in their phys-
`ical properties, the moisture content and range indicat-
`ed above must be considered generalizations subject to
`variation and interpretation.
`
`The terms “manure,” “waste,” and “residue” are some-
`times used synonymously. In this chapter, manure re-
`fers to materials that have a high percentage of feces and
`urine. Other material that may or may not have signifi-
`cant feces, and urine is referred to as waste or a relat-
`ed term such as wastewater. The term as excreted refers
`to feces and urine prior to any changes due to dilution
`water addition, drying, volatilization, or other physi-
`cal, chemical, or biological processes. Litter is a specific
`form of poultry waste that results from floor production
`of birds after an initial layer of a bedding material, such
`as wood shavings, is placed on the floor at the beginning
`of and perhaps during the production cycle.
`
`Because of the high moisture content of as excreted ma-
`nure and treated waste, their specific weight is very sim-
`ilar to that of water—62.4 pounds per cubic foot. Some
`manure and waste that have considerable solids content
`
`(210–VI–AWMFH, March 2008)
`
`4–5
`
`13
`
`Exhibit 1059
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 13 of 40
`
`

`

`Chapter 4
`
`Agricultural Waste Characteristics
`
`Part 651
`Agricultural Waste Management
`Field Handbook
`
`Example 4–1
`
`Given: A laboratory sample of manure weighing 200
`grams is oven dried. After oven drying, the sam-
`ple weighs 50 grams. Following oven drying, the
`remaining 50 grams is heated to 1,112 °F. After
`this heating, 20 grams remain.
`
`Calculate:
`
`Following are a number of relationships that may be
`used to evaluate the constituents of manure or other
`wastes.
`
`% dw
`% wb
`
` =
`
`(oven dry weight of manure)
`(weight of manure at excreted moisture content)
`
`% wb
`% dw
`
`=
`
` (weight of manure at excreted moisture content)
`(
`ooven dry weight of manure)
`
`×
`
`100
`
`
`
`dry weight
` wet weight
`
`= 
`
`
`% dry matter
`
`% moisture
`
`=
`
`100
`
`−
`
`% dry matter
`
`% dry matter
`
`=
`
`100
`
`−
`
`% moisture
`
`Moisture content (MC)
`
`=
`−
`MC wet weight dry weight
`=
`−
`200 grams 50 grams
`=
`150 grams
`Percent moisture (%MC)
`
`×
`
`100
`
`×
`
`100
`
`
`
`% MC
`
`=
`
`
`
`=
`
`
`
`
`moisture
`%
`100
`
`)
`
`100
`(
`
`−
`
`
`
`.
`
`×
`
`% .w b. % .d w
`
`=
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MC
`t w
`we
`eight
`0 g
`15
`rams
`0 g
`20
`rams
`75%
`
`=
`
`Percent total solids dry basis (%TS)
`
`
`
`
`
`%
`
`
`
` .TS w b .
`
`
`
`=
`
`=
`
`dry weight
`wet weight
`50 grams
`200 grams
`= 25
`%
`
`×
`
`100
`
`
`
`×
`
`100
`
`
`
`
`
`×
`100
`
`
`
`.w b.
`
`% . w b
`
`
`−
`100
`
`. %
`
`
`
`.
`
`=
`
`
`
`
`
`% . d w
`
`+
`=
` of
`weight of manure (wet) weight of total weight
`solids (dry)
`moisture
`
`Carbon is a component of all organic wastes. Quantify-
`ing it is important because of carbon’s impact on soil
`quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Adding manure
`and other organic material to the soil improves the soil’s
`structure and tilth and increases its nutrient storage ca-
`pacity. As the soil sequesters the carbon in the manure,
`it reduces the emissions of carbon dioxide and methane
`into the air.
`
`The carbon content of a material can be determined us-
`ing the following equation if the material’s volatile solids
`are known.
`
`C
`
`=
`
`0 55.
`
`×
`
`VS
`
`where:
`C = carbon (% C d.w.)
`VS = volatile solids (%VS d.w.)
`
`After the 50-gram dry sample (originally 200-gm wet
`sample) is heated to 1,112 °F, the sample now weighs 20
`grams. Since the fixed solids are what remain, they are:
`
`Percent fixed solids (%FS)
`FS = 20 grams
`VS = TS – FS
`= 50 grams – 20 grams
`= 30 grams
`
`Percent volatile solids both wet basis and dry
`weight basis. (% VS w.b. and % VS d.w.)
`
`%
`
`
`
`
`
` .VS d w
`
`30
`grams
`
`
`50
`grams
`
`%60
`
`.
`
`=
`
`=
`
`×
`
`100
`
`4–6
`
`(210–VI–AWMFH, March 2008)
`
`14
`
`Exhibit 1059
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 14 of 40
`
`

`

`Chapter 4
`
`Agricultural Waste Characteristics
`
`Part 651
`Agricultural Waste Management
`Field Handbook
`
`Example 4–2
`
`Example 4–3
`
`The testing laboratory reports that the manure’s volatile
`solids on a dry weight basis are 60 percent. Compute the
`percentage d.w. carbon content of the sample.
`
`Determine the C:N ratio for a manure that contains 2.1
`percent d.w. of total nitrogen and a carbon content of
`33.0 percent d.w.
`
`C
`TN
`33 0
`.
`2 1
`.
`
`15 7 1
`.
`:
`
`= = =
`
`:
`C N
`
`The following are equations for converting nutrient lev-
`els reported on dry basis to a wet basis:
`
`nutrient level,
`bbasis
` dry
`
`×
`
`(
`−
`100 % moisture
`100
`
`)
`
`×
`nutrient level, % dry matter
`ss
`total solids
` dry basi
`
`100
`
`nutrient level, =
`wet basis
`
`nutrient level, =
`wet basis
`
`Example 4–4
`
`A manure testing laboratory reports that the manure
`has a nitrogen content of 11.5 percent d.w. The manure
`sampled contained 85 percent moisture. Compute the
`pounds of nitrogen per ton of manure as it will be trans-
`ferred for utilization.
`nutrient level,
`bbasis
` dry
`
`×
`
`(
`−
`100 % moisture
`100
`
`)
`
`nutrient level, =
`wet basis
`
`.
`11 5
`
`×
`
`(
`−
`100 85
`100
`
`)
`
`
`
`1 725.
`
`%
`
`1
`
`×
` ton 2,000 lb/ton
`
`×
`
`1.725
`1
`000
`
`=
`
`= =
`
`lb
`
`N/ton
`
`= 34 5.
`
` lb/ton
`
`(210–VI–AWMFH, March 2008)
`
`4–7
`
`.
`
`=
`=
`=
`
`
`
` .VS d w
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`×
`
`%
`
`.0 55
`×
`
`.0 55 60
`. % .33 0 d w
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`The manure has a moisture content of 80 percent.
`Compute the percentage of carbon contained in the ma-
`nure on a wet basis.
`
`%
`
`=
` C w b
`
`.
`. %
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` C d w
`.
`
`
`
`100
`(
`
`−
`
`.
`
`×
`
` moisture
`
`%
`100
`
`)
`
`)
`
`×
`100 80
`(
`100
`
`=
`
`=
`
`33 00
`.
`
`×
`
`6.. %6
`
`Knowing the carbon to nitrogen ratio (C:N) can be im-
`portant. For example, the C:N is an important aspect of
`the compost recipe (ch. 10). If the C:N is high, such as it
`might be in a manure containing organic bedding such
`as sawdust, the carbon can tie up nitrogen from the soil
`when land applied. The C:N can be determined using the
`following equation.
`
`
`
`C N:
`
`=
`
`C
`TN
`
`where:
`C:N = carbon to nitrogen ratio
`C = carbon (%C d.w.)
`TN = total nitrogen (%TN d.w.)
`
`%
`
` .C d w
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1059
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 15 of 40
`
`

`

`Chapter 4
`
`Agricultural Waste Characteristics
`
`Part 651
`Agricultural Waste Management
`Field Handbook
`
`651.0402 Units of measure
`
`In this chapter, English units are used exclusively for
`weight, volume, and concentration data for manure,
`waste, and residue.
`
`The table values for as excreted manure from livestock
`is expressed in three different formats. They are in terms
`of mass or volume per:
`
`• day per 1,000 pounds of livestock live weight
`(lb/d/1000 lb)
`
`and
`
`• finished animal (f.a.) for meat producing animals
`
`or
`
`• day-animal (d-a) for other animals
`
`Excreted manure table values are given in the NRCS
`traditional format of mass or volume per day per 1,000
`pounds live weight for all livestock and poultry types
`and production groupings. The 1,000 pounds live weight
`or animal unit (AU) is often convenient because there is
`a commonality of expression, regardless of the species
`or weight of the individual species.
`
`A 1,000-pound AU is 1,000 pounds of live weight, not an
`individual animal. For example, a 1,400-pound Holstein
`cow is 1.4 AU (1400/1000 = 1.4). A 5-pound laying hen
`would be 0.005 AU (5/1000 = 0.005). The challenge in us-
`ing table values in this format is for young animals. Since
`these animals are gaining weight, an animal weight that
`is representative of the time period being considered
`must be determined.
`
`As an alternative, table values for excreted manure from
`livestock and poultry being fed for an end result of meat
`production are given in terms of mass or volume per fin-
`ished animal. The table values given in this format are
`the mass or volume for one animal’s finishing period in
`the feeding facility. Manure production expressed in this
`manner eliminates the problems of determining a rep-
`resentative weight of the animal for its tenure at a facil-
`ity. Breeding stock weight for beef or swine is not given
`in this format because the animal’s weight is stable, and
`they are usually retained year-round.
`
`Table values are also given in terms of mass or volume
`per day-animal for dairy animals, beef and swine breed-
`ing stock, and layer chickens. The young stock included
`
`in the tables with this format, such as dairy calves and
`heifers, are expressed as mass or volume per day-animal
`that is representative for the span of time when they are
`in this age category.
`
`Food processing waste is recorded in cubic feet per day
`(ft3/d), or the source is included such as cubic feet per
`1,000 pounds of po