United States
`Chapter 11
`Department of
`Agriculture
`
`Soil
`Conservation
`Service
`
`Waste Utilization
`
`Agricultural
`Waste Management
`Field Handbook
`
`Part 651
`Agricultural Waste Management
`Field Handbook
`
`Chapter 11 Waste Utilization
`
`(210-AWMFH, 4/92)
`
`11–37
`
`Exhibit 1062
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 1 of 40
`
`

`

`Chapter 11
`
`Waste Utilization
`
`Chapter 11 Waste Utilization
`
`Part 651
`Agricultural Waste Management
`Field Handbook
`
`Contents:
`
`651.1100
`
`Introduction
`
`11–1
`
`11–2
`651.1101 Waste consistency
`(a) Solid ................................................................................................................11–2
`(b) Semi-solid ...................................................................................................... 11–2
`(c) Slurry ..............................................................................................................11–2
`(d) Liquid ..............................................................................................................11–4
`
`651.1102
`
`11–4
`Land application
`(a) The conservation plan ..................................................................................11–4
`(b) Benefits of recycling .................................................................................... 11–4
`(c) Application methods .................................................................................... 11–5
`(d) Application management .......................................................................... 11–10
`
`651.1103
`
`Salinity
`
`11–11
`
`651.1104
`
`11–14
`Plant nutrients
`(a) Nitrogen ...................................................................................................... 11–14
`(b) Phosphorus ..................................................................................................11–15
`(c) Potassium .................................................................................................... 11–15
`
`11–16
`651.1105 Nutrient management
`(a) Nutrient losses ............................................................................................11–17
`(b) Nutrient mineralization ..............................................................................11–20
`(c) Nutrient requirements ................................................................................ 11–22
`(d) Nutrient accounting .................................................................................... 11–23
`(e) Accounting procedure ................................................................................ 11–23
`(f) Adjustments for site characteristics ........................................................ 11–32
`(g) Rule-of-thumb estimates ............................................................................ 11–33
`
`651.1106 References
`
`11–36
`
`(210-AWMFH, 4/92)
`
`11–i
`11–39
`
`Exhibit 1062
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 2 of 40
`
`

`

`Chapter 11
`
`Waste Utilization
`
`Part 651
`Agricultural Waste Management
`Field Handbook
`
`Tables
`
`Table 11–1
`
`Friction loss ratio, slurries vs. clean water
`
`Table 11–2
`
`Maximum application rate (in/hr)
`
`Table 11–3
`
`Reduction coefficients by percent solids
`
`Table 11–4
`
`Total salts and electrical conductivity for various
`waste material (Stewart 1975)
`
`11–6
`
`11–6
`
`11–7
`
`11–12
`
`Table 11–5
`
`Percent of original nutrient content of manure retained 11–18
` by various management systems
`
`Table 11–6
`
`Percentage of nitrogen of that in the applied manure
`still potentially available to the soil
`
`Table 11–7
`
`An estimate of inorganic nitrogen losses to leaching
` related to the soil Leaching Index
`
`Table 11–8
`
`Approximate manure— N denitrification estimates
`for various soils
`
`Table 11–9
`
`General mineralization rates for nitrogen,
`phosphorus, and potassium
`
`Table 11–10 Rule-of-thumb estimate of available nutrients in
`manure from dairy cows by management system
`
`Table 11–11 Rule-of-thumb estimate of available nutrients in
`manure from feeder swine by management system
`
`11–19
`
`11–20
`
`11–21
`
`11–22
`
`11–33
`
`11–34
`
`Table 11–12 Rule-of-thumb estimate of available nutrients in
`manure from broilers and layers by management system
`
`11–34
`
`Table 11–13 Rule-of-thumb estimate of available nutrients in
`manure from feeder beef by management system
`
`11–35
`
`11–ii
`11–40
`
`(210-AWMFH, 4/92)
`
`Exhibit 1062
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 3 of 40
`
`

`

`Chapter 11
`
`Waste Utilization
`
`Part 651
`Agricultural Waste Management
`Field Handbook
`
`Figures
`
`Figure 11–1 Relative handling characteristics of different types
`of manure and percent total solids
`
`Figure 11–2 Gallons of water required per cubic foot of material
`for dilution to pumping consistency
`
`Figure 11–3 Acre inches pumped in given time at various
`pumping rates
`
`Figure 11–4 Removal time for various cycle times and spreader
` capacities
`
`Figure 11–5 Waste storage pond dilution factors for re sulting
`low salinity on coarse textured soils
`
`Figure 11–6 Waste storage pond dilution factors for resulting
`low salinity on medium textured soils
`
`Figure 11–7 Waste storage pond dilution factors for resulting
`low salinity on fine textured soils
`
`Figure 11–8 Maximum annual amount of undiluted waste storage
`pond water that can be added to a coarse (C),
`medium (M), or fine textured (F) soil
`
`Figure 11–9 Distribution of nutrients between feces and urine
`
`Figure 11–10 Example of a water budget for winter wheat
`
`11–2
`
`11–3
`
`11–9
`
`11–10
`
`11–12
`
`11–12
`
`11–13
`
`11–13
`
`11–14
`
`11–17
`
`Figure 11–11 Nitrogen transformation in the accounting procedure
`
`11–24
`
`(210-AWMFH, 4/92)
`
`11–41
`11–iii
`
`Exhibit 1062
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 4 of 40
`
`

`

`Chapter 11
`
`Chapter 11
`
`Waste Utilization
`
`Waste Utilization
`
`Part 651
`Agricultural Waste Management
`Field Handbook
`
`651.1100 Introduction
`
`Water and air quality protection requires proper man-
`agement of organic waste from agricultural opera-
`tions. Recycling of agricultural waste materials by land
`application for plant uptake and crop production is a
`traditional and proven waste utilization technique.
`Properly done, recycling by land application and crop
`uptake is an environmentally sound method of waste
`management.
`
`The primary purpose of this chapter is to give informa-
`tion on utilization of livestock and poultry manure. It
`describes methods for applying animal waste to land
`and lists cautions and restrictions for specific meth-
`ods. Other methods are discussed, but not presented.
`
`Other waste utilization methods include handling
`products of solids separation and composting, biogas
`generation, and wetlands creation. Solids from solids
`separation operations can be used for bedding for
`livestock; they can be mixed with grains and other
`materials and re-fed to cattle; and they can be dried,
`bagged, and sold on the retail market. Liquids from the
`solids separation operation must be accounted for in
`waste management operations.
`
`Waste materials can be used for biogas generation.
`The gas can be used for powering electricity generat-
`ing equipment, the electricity from which can be either
`used onfarm or sold to a local utility. The gas can also
`be used directly to run heating equipment for some
`livestock, such as farrowing houses or pig nurseries,
`and for poultry operations, such as egg laying opera-
`tions. The volume of waste material and the content of
`elements do not diminish significantly through the
`biogas generation process.
`
`Composting of organic materials to reduce their reac-
`tivity or to stabilize the material is a viable waste
`management component. The agricultural producer
`must have the necessary skills and equipment to
`manage composting operations, and there must be a
`need for or use of the composted material. Waste that
`needs to be managed using composting techniques
`include dead bird carcasses (poultry) because an
`environmentally safe utilization alternative is not
`available and such highly unstable nitrogenous mate-
`
`rial as livestock manure because adequate land is not
`available or the crop nutrient needs are insufficient.
`Sale of composted materials as nursery rooting materi-
`als or on the retail market makes composting a viable
`waste utilization component.
`
`Use of constructed wetlands falls peripherally under
`the utilization topic in terms of providing a nutrient
`source for aquatic vegetation associated with the
`wetlands. The primary function of wetlands used in
`waste management systems is treatment. Effluent
`from wetlands should be monitored to assure that
`state water quality standards are being met. Influent
`quality of wastewater being supplied to the wetlands
`should be checked to assure that nutrient strength is
`not excessive for the aquatic vegetation involved.
`
`Agricultural land is also the recipient of many other
`wastes, such as municipal wastewater and sludge,
`food processing waste, and waste classified as hazard-
`ous under the Resource Construction and Recovery
`Act. These other wastes have widely varying charac-
`teristics requiring special design considerations that
`are not treated in this handbook.
`
`Utilization of waste agrichemicals is not in the scope
`of this chapter. The chapter on pesticide management
`describes how to properly manage and dispose of
`waste agrichemicals (to be added).
`
`Other than those where the waste products are used
`by offsite sources, waste treatment options described
`above have a resultant waste material that must be
`used on the farm. The option available to the farm
`owner/operator ultimately comes down to land appli-
`cation for recycling purposes. Consequently, this
`chapter’s primary function is to provide information
`on utilization of animal manure and wastewater ap-
`plied on agricultural land for crop production and
`environmental protection.
`
`As a review of information presented in chapter 9,
`consistency of the waste controls how the waste is
`handled. Total solids (TS) content in the waste con-
`trols consistency. Wastes are classified in four catego-
`ries according to their consistency—solid, semi-solid,
`slurry, and liquid. As the moisture content varies, the
`handling characteristics vary. Chapter 4 gives the
`moisture content of manure (feces and urine) as
`excreted; however, changes in consistency as moisture
`
`(210-AWMFH, 4/92)
`
`11–1
`
`Exhibit 1062
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 5 of 40
`
`

`

`Chapter 11
`
`Waste Utilization
`
`Part 651
`Agricultural Waste Management
`Field Handbook
`
`is added or removed must be taken into account in
`planning a waste management system. The consis-
`tency of manure when it is applied to the land affects
`the type of equipment used and the amount applied.
`
`651.1101 Waste consis-
`tency
`
`Figure 11–1 Relative handling characteristics of different
`types of manure and percent total solids
`(ASAE 1990)
`
`As excreted
`
`Ruminants tend to produce a manure that is in the
`semi-solid range when excreted; swine excrete a slurry
`manure; and poultry excrete a manure that is classi-
`fied as a solid. This clearly points out the need to be
`knowledgeable of waste consistency in terms of total
`solids to properly select waste management system
`components.
`
`(a) Solid
`
`Waste with a high percent total solids—called solid
`waste—is produced by a wide variety of agricultural,
`municipal, and industrial operations. Animal-feeding
`operations, particularly feedlots, yield large quantities
`of solid organic wastes that can be applied to land.
`Manure that is more than about 20 percent solids (fig.
`11–1) can be handled as a solid. A mixture of manure,
`bedding (straw or wood chips), and feed waste is
`generally a solid. It is transported by box/open
`spreaders or dump trucks to the land for application.
`
`30
`
`(b) Semi-solid
`
`Semi-solid waste has a somewhat firm consistency.
`With reference to figure 11-1, total solids content of
`semi-solid animal manure can range from 10 to about
`22 percent, depending on the animal species. Semi-
`solid manure generally can be transported and spread
`using the same box/open spreaders and dump trucks
`used for solid manure.
`
`(c) Slurry
`
`Slurry generally is associated with confined feeding
`operations for cattle and swine. The feces and urine as
`excreted behave as a slurry rather than as a solid or a
`liquid. The solids content of slurry ranges from about 5
`to 15 percent except as noted below. In this range,
`manure has fluid handling characteristics, but requires
`special pumping equipment. It can be transported by
`either tank wagon or pump and pipeline. Pump and
`pipeline are more economical for transporting large
`
`Swine
`
`Poultry
`
`Beef (feeders)
`
`Dairy Cows
`
`0
`
`25
`20
`15
`10
`5
`Percent total Solids (wet basis)
`
`CJ
`CJ
`
`Liquid
`
`Slurry
`
`Semi-solid
`
`Solid
`
`--
`
`11–2
`
`(210-AWMFH, 4/92)
`
`Exhibit 1062
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 6 of 40
`
`

`

`Chapter 11
`
`Waste Utilization
`
`Part 651
`Agricultural Waste Management
`Field Handbook
`
`volumes of slurry because of the time and labor re-
`quirements for tank wagons. Slurry can be applied to
`the land by sprinklers that have a large nozzle, by
`broadcasting from slurry tanks, or by injection under
`the ground surface. Because of its propensity to cause
`odors and pollute water, slurry should be incorporated
`immediately into the soil profile.
`
`If slurry material from confined livestock facilities is
`properly agitated, it generally flows readily to a pump
`inlet. It may have a solids content of as much as 10 or
`15 percent for swine and cattle manure and 20 percent
`for some poultry manure. The more viscous materials
`are pumped into tank wagons by high-capacity, low-
`head pumps or are drawn in by vacuum pumps. On
`occasion, additional water is required for easier agita-
`tion and pumping.
`
`Swine and poultry manure with about 12 percent
`solids and cattle manure with about 7 percent solids
`can be handled by certain types of large bore irrigation
`
`equipment. Large gun-type sprinklers must be pow-
`ered by relatively low-capacity, high-head pumps that
`have chopping blades.
`
`Swine or poultry manure diluted to less than 7 percent
`solids and cattle manure diluted to less than 4 percent
`solids can be applied by most irrigation equipment if
`the manure is free of fibrous material. Standard cen-
`trifugal pumps, regular sprinkler nozzles, or gated
`pipes can be used. If the material is distributed in
`graded furrows, the tail water should be recovered to
`prevent the runoff from polluting the surface water.
`
`Figure 11–2 can be used to determine the amount of
`water needed to dilute manure for a specific pumping
`consistency. For example, assume that cattle manure
`that is 20 percent solids must be diluted for use with a
`standard irrigation sprinkler. The desired solids con-
`tent is 4 percent. According to information in figure
`11–2, roughly 30 gallons of water are needed per cubic
`foot of manure.
`
`Figure 11–2 Gallons of water required per cubic foot of material for dilution to pumping consistency
`
`Percent S
`olids in M
`
`45
`40
`
`an
`ure
`
`30
`
`25
`20
`
`15
`
`10
`
`40
`35
`30
`
`25
`
`20
`
`15
`
`4567891
`
`0
`
`3
`
`2
`
`Percent solids resulting
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4 5 6 7 8 910
`
`15
`
`20
`
`25
`
`30
`
`40 50 607080
`
`Gallons of water to add per cubic foot of material
`
`(210-AWMFH, 4/92)
`
`11–3
`
`Exhibit 1062
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 7 of 40
`
`

`

`Chapter 11
`
`Waste Utilization
`
`Part 651
`Agricultural Waste Management
`Field Handbook
`
`Figure 11–2 is based on the equation:
`(
`)
`P
`o
`P
`d
`
`7 48.
`
`=
`
`G
`
`−
`
`P
`d
`
`651.1102 Land application
`
`This section describes how manure can be applied to
`land to furnish nutrients for crops without degrading
`the environment.
`
`(a) The conservation plan
`
`Land application of agricultural waste for crop produc-
`tion requires careful planning. Conservation plans
`developed for animal-feeding operations should in-
`clude a plan for agricultural waste management needs
`and must address the overall nutrient management
`requirements for the farm or ranch operation. Chapter
`2 gives details of the planning considerations. The goal
`should be to recycle nutrients in the waste material as
`fertilizer in amounts that can be used by the crop and
`will not degrade the environment.
`
`The nutrients in the animal waste to be land applied
`must be accounted for in the nutrient management
`plan for the farming operation. Realistic crop yield
`goals must be established that recognize soil limita-
`tions and provide a fertility program that balances the
`nutrient application among all sources—manure,
`organic residue, soil minerals, commercial fertilizer,
`irrigation water, and nitrogen fixing plants.
`
`(b) Benefits of recycling
`
`The most obvious benefit of recycling manure to the
`land is the fertilizer value. The return of the nutrients
`saves:
`
`• Money otherwise spent for commercial fertilizer
`• Natural resources
`• Energy required to produce chemical fertilizers
`
`The supply of easily mined phosphate for fertilizer is
`declining and needs to be conserved. More than 500
`billion cubic feet of natural gas are used annually to
`produce ammonia nitrogen for fertilizer (Nelson 1975).
`
`Other onfarm benefits result from land application of
`manure. Manure adds organic matter to the soil, which
`improves soil structure, infiltration, and tilth. Soil
`
`where:
`G = Gallons of water required to be added to mix-
`ture per cubic foot of manure
`Po = Original percent of solids in the mixture
`Pd = Desired percent of solids in the mixture
`
`Important characteristics of different manure during
`storage in slurry form include:
`
`• Poultry manure is heavy and dense and gener-
`ally stratifies with a liquid layer forming on top.
`• Swine manure tends to remain in suspension.
`Solids separation using short-term settling is
`difficult.
`• The solids in cattle manure generally rise to the
`top and form a crust. This is particularly true if
`long hay or silage is fed to the cattle or if bed-
`ding is collected with the manure.
`
`(d) Liquid
`
`Liquid waste has solids content of 5 percent or less.
`This consistency generally is produced where manure
`is diluted by wash water, flushing water, rainfall or
`runoff, or snowmelt. A common example is the liquid
`in a waste storage pond used to store runoff from a
`feedlot or outside dairy housing. Liquids also result
`from food processing operations and from municipal
`wastewater treatment.
`
`Liquid waste can be handled by any type of sprinkler
`system or by such flood irrigation methods as furrows
`or borders. Waste application systems can often be
`combined with surface irrigation. Manure solids distri-
`bution, hence nutrients, may be uneven if flood irriga-
`tion methods are used because solids tend to settle out
`near the turnout.
`
`If adequate water is available for irrigation, the system
`can be designed for maximum use of the manure for
`crop fertilization while meeting the consumptive use
`requirements; for example, the water needs of the
`crop. A screen must be installed in the system for
`removal of long fibers, hair, and other debris before
`irrigation begins.
`
`11–4
`
`(210-AWMFH, 4/92)
`
`Exhibit 1062
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 8 of 40
`
`

`

`Chapter 11
`
`Waste Utilization
`
`Part 651
`Agricultural Waste Management
`Field Handbook
`
`erosion is controlled, and the moisture holding capac-
`ity is increased. Many farmers report that the fields on
`which manure has been applied always seem more
`loose and moist. Another benefit is that phosphorus
`and the organic part of the nitrogen are released
`slowly from the manure by the action of micro-organ-
`isms. This conserves these elements and makes them
`available to crops throughout the growing season. A
`disadvantage is that the nutrient release rate generally
`cannot be controlled.
`
`Off-farm benefits also accrue. Properly applying ma-
`nure reduces the potential of overenrichment of lakes
`and streams and also decreases the possibility of
`ground water contamination.
`
`(c) Application methods
`
`The land application method should be based on the
`type and consistency of waste available, management
`of the confined animal operation (including waste
`management system), physical features of the farm,
`operator preferences, and availability of labor. No one
`correct method of waste application is always the right
`one to use. Generally, several alternatives are avail-
`able. For the purpose of this discussion, waste applica-
`tion methods are categorized into two groups—
`pumped and hauled. The travel distances and applica-
`tion rates achievable with the application equipment
`must be addressed in preparing nutrient management
`plans and planning waste management systems.
`
`Whether hauled or pumped, applied waste should be
`incorporated into the soil as soon as possible to pre-
`serve nutrient value and reduce the opportunity for
`runoff or odor complaints. Sections 651.0304 and
`651.0802(b) provide guidance on management to
`minimize problems where wastes are applied on
`pasture.
`
`(1) Pumped application methods
`Pumped application methods require either a liquid or
`slurry waste material, a delivery system of pump and
`conveyance, and suitable application equipment, such
`as large gun-type sprinklers, manure guns, or gated
`pipe. Gravity-fed conveyance systems can be substi-
`tuted for pumps where the specific operation provides
`the elevation differential required for operation.
`
`Because pumped irrigation application applies waste
`at a much faster rate than hauling, special consider-
`ation must be given to soil characteristics as follows
`(Horsfield 1973):
`
`• Soils that have very low internal drainage and
`a very slow intake rate result in runoff and
`ponding, which means a greater chance for
`unequal infiltration and potential stream
`pollution.
`• A sloping terrain at the application site makes
`it increasingly important that waste applica-
`tion rates are less than soil intake rates to
`ensure no runoff to watercourses.
`• A high water table means that nutrients pro-
`duced from waste decay have to move only
`short distances to contaminate the ground
`water. Shallow or sandy soils that have little
`filtering capacity increase the potential for a
`problem.
`• Excessively drained, low yield-potential soils
`are a problem because crops remove less of
`the applied nutrients and irrigation water
`moves through the soil too rapidly for ad-
`equate assimilation.
`
`The design of a pumped application system is site
`specific. The local irrigation specialist and irrigation
`guides should be consulted where available. If the
`pumped system is to be used for both application and
`the irrigation water supply, special care should be
`taken to size the system to meet the water consump-
`tion requirements of the crop.
`
`(i) Sprinkler systems—Sprinkler systems are
`widely used to apply liquid manure and agricultural
`wastewater. The type of irrigation system depends
`upon the consistency of the manure and wastewater.
`Particle size of the solids contained in the manure and
`wastewater also affects the applicability of the particu-
`lar type of irrigation system.
`
`Liquid consistency of the waste can be assured by the
`addition of dilution water (fig. 11–2), removal of sol-
`ids, or both. With proper screening, waste materials
`that meet the liquid consistency test can be applied
`with any type sprinkler system. Pump intake screens
`should be sized with openings no larger than the
`smallest sprinkler orifice.
`
`(210-vi–AWMFH, rev. 1, July 1996)
`
`11–5
`
`Exhibit 1062
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 9 of 40
`
`

`

`Chapter 11
`
`Waste Utilization
`
`Part 651
`Agricultural Waste Management
`Field Handbook
`
`the velocity is 3.42 fps. From table 11–1, the factor
`(ratio) for slurry vs. clean water is 2.5 at 3.5 fps with
`10 percent solids. The friction loss for the slurry would
`be calculated as:
`.
` psi
`0 19
` ft
`100
`
`=
`
`
`0 48.
`100
`
` psi
` ft
`
`×
`
`
`
`2 5.
`
`Slurry can be applied using special pumping equip-
`ment and sprinklers that have a large nozzle or manure
`guns that have a flexible nozzle. Wastes containing
`trash, abrasives, bedding, or stringy material are not
`suitable for most sprinklers unless preconditioned by
`chopping or grinding.
`
`(ii) Pipelines—Pipe friction losses for water that has
`solids are higher than those for clean water. The
`velocity in pipes should be less than 5 feet per second
`(fps), with a minimum of 2 fps to prevent sedimenta-
`tion. Table 11–1 gives the relative increase in friction
`loss for slurries as compared to clean water for
`asphalt-dipped cast-iron pipe that is 6 to 10 inches in
`diameter. Although friction ratios will be slightly
`higher for smoother pipe materials at high velocities,
`the ratios below are satisfactory for most design
`conditions using PVC. Head losses in valves and fit-
`tings because of the turbulence should be approxi-
`mately equal to those for clean water.
`
`Example 11–1:
`An 8-inch pipeline (PVC, IPS, SDR = 32.5, C = 150) is to
`deliver 550 gpm of slurry containing 10 percent solids.
`The friction loss for clean water is 0.19 psi/100 ft., and
`
`Although pipe friction losses might be higher for
`wastewater than for clean water, friction losses gener-
`ally are a small percentage of the total power require-
`ment in a sprinkler system. When the same pump is
`used for pumping both slurries and clean water, the
`pump might operate at different points on the pump
`curve for the two liquids. The effects when pumping
`slurries are a marked increase in brake horsepower
`requirements, a reduction in head produced, and some
`reduction in capacity. The increased horsepower
`requirement is caused by the higher fluid viscosity and
`is necessary to overcome the velocity head loss and
`the pipe friction losses. To account for the differences
`associated with presence of solids and higher viscos-
`ity, it is satisfactory to increase the power unit rating
`by 10 percent as a rule of thumb for situations where
`friction loss ratio exceeds 1.0.
`
`Table 11–1
`
`Friction loss ratio, slurries vs. clean water
`(pipe, 6" to 10" diameter)
`
`Table 11–2 Maximum application rate (in/hr)
`
`Velocity
`fps
`
`- - - - - - - - - - - - Percent solids - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`10
`
`Soil texture
`
`- - - - - - Application amount in inches - - - - - -
`0.25
`0.5
`0.75
`1.0
`1.25
`1.5
`2.0
`
`1.0
`1.5
`2.0
`2.5
`3.0
`3.5
`4.0
`4.5
`5.0
`5.5
`6.0
`6.5
`7.0
`
`1.1
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`
`1.5
`1.2
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`
`2.1
`1.5
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`
`2.9
`2.1
`1.6
`1.3
`1.2
`1.1
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`
`4.0
`2.5
`1.9
`1.6
`1.5
`1.3
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`1.0
`
`5.3
`4.0
`3.3
`2.9
`2.7
`2.5
`2.4
`2.3
`2.2
`2.1
`2.0
`2.0
`2.0
`
`Source: Adapted from Colt Industries Hydraulic Handbook, figure
`44, Fairbanks Morse Pump Div., 11th Ed.
`
`6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00
`Sand
`6.00 6.00 4.83 4.22 3.86 3.62 3.32
`Loamy sand
`4.91 2.97 2.32 1.99 1.80 1.67 1.51
`Sandy loam
`3.11 1.69 1.21 0.98 0.84 0.74 0.62
`Loam
`2.70 1.45 1.03 0.82 0.70 0.61 0.51
`Silt loam
`Sandy clay loam 1.74 0.96 0.69 0.56 0.48 0.43 0.37
`Clay loam
`1.27 0.68 0.48 0.39 0.33 0.29 0.24
`Silty clay loam 1.09 0.57 0.40 0.32 0.26 0.23 0.19
`Sandy clay
`0.61 0.33 0.23 0.19 0.16 0.14 0.12
`Silty clay
`0.84 0.44 0.30 0.24 0.20 0.17 0.14
`Clay
`0.39 0.21 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.07
`
`Note: This table is for infiltration rate for full cover conditions and
`initial moisture content at 50 percent of the available water
`capacity. Field capacity of sand through sandy loam is
`assumed to be at 1/10 bar.
`
`11–6
`
`(210-vi–AWMFH, rev. 1, July 1996)
`
`Exhibit 1062
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 10 of 40
`
`

`

`Chapter 11
`
`Waste Utilization
`
`Part 651
`Agricultural Waste Management
`Field Handbook
`
`(iii) Application rates and amounts—For total
`solids content of 0.5 percent or less, sprinkler applica-
`tion rates should be consistent with the local irrigation
`guide recommendations, with no adjustment. If no
`local irrigation guide data are available, application
`rates in table 11–2 (based on soil texture) can be used
`for irrigation system design and management to help
`avoid ponding and runoff.
`
`For total solids content in the wastewater of 0.5 per-
`cent or greater, application rates from the irrigation
`guide or table 11–2 should be reduced according to the
`information in table 11–3. The reduction coefficients in
`table 11–3 are based solely on decreases in hydraulic
`conductivity because of a layer of manure that forms
`on the soil surface during irrigation and has a lower
`hydraulic conductivity than the soil. Further reduc-
`tions may be necessary in some situations, such as
`applications of wastewater with salt concentrations
`sufficient to disperse clay aggregates. Salt content of
`the wastewater should be determined to assess its
`effect of the intake rates of the soil where it will be
`applied.
`
`Example 11–2:
`The land user wants to apply 1 inch of wastewater
`with a 5 percent solids content on a loam soil. What is
`the allowable application rate in inches per hour?
`
`Table 11–3
`
`Reduction coefficients by percent solids
`
`Soil texture
`
`- - - - - - - - - Percent solids (by wt) - - - - - - - - - -
`0.5
`1.0
`2.0
`3.0
`5.0
`7.0
`10.0
`
`0.88 0.55 0.31 0.22 0.13 0.10 0.07
`Sand
`0.70 0.54 0.37 0.28 0.19 0.14 0.10
`Loamy sand
`0.87 0.77 0.63 0.53 0.40 0.32 0.25
`Sandy loam
`0.97 0.93 0.88 0.83 0.74 0.67 0.59
`Loam
`0.98 0.95 0.91 0.87 0.81 0.75 0.68
`Silt loam
`Sandy clay loam 0.99 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.87 0.83 0.78
`Clay loam
`0.99 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.94 0.92 0.89
`Silty clay loam 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96
`Sandy clay
`1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99
`Silty clay
`1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
`Clay
`1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
`
`Maximum application rate from table 11–2 is 0.98 inch
`per hour. The reduction coefficient from table 11–3 is
`0.74. The allowable application rate is:
`
`×
`
`
`0 98 0 74. .
`
`
`
`=
`
`
`
`0 73.
`
` in/hr
`
`Example 11–3:
`A land user wants to apply wastewater with a 5 per-
`cent solids content on a silt loam soil that has dense
`vegetation. The estimated surface storage is 0.2 inches,
`before any runoff would occur. The land user would
`like to apply 1.2 inches at a set. What is the allowable
`application rate?
`
`Because 0.2 inches can be applied before surface
`runoff starts, the minimum amount that must infiltrate
`into the soil is 1.2 less 0.2, or 1.0 inch. From table 11–2,
`the maximum application rate is 0.82 inches per hour.
`To determine the application rate for 5 percent solids,
`the maximum application rate for clean water is multi-
`plied by the reduction coefficient for 5 percent solids.
`The factor is 0.81 from table 11–3. Therefore, the
`application rate for 5 percent solids is:
`
`0 82.
`
`×
` in/hr 0.81= 0.66 in/hr
`
`The amount of application must be based upon either
`the nutrient requirements of the crop or consumptive
`use requirements of the crop, whichever factor is
`limiting. For example, to achieve a desired nutrient
`loading, the irrigation requirement might be exceeded.
`In this case, irrigation requirements would govern
`because meeting the nutrient requirement requires an
`excess water application, leading to excessive deep
`percolation and leaching of nutrients below the root
`zone. If meeting the irrigation requirement is not a
`management objective, water requirements must still
`be considered so that excess leaching or runoff can be
`avoided.
`
`(iv) Management considerations—Waste must be
`applied in a manner that
`
`• Prevents runoff or excessive deep percolation
`of the wastewater,
`• Applies nutrients in amounts that do not
`exceed the needs of the crop, and
`• Minimizes odors from the waste being applied.
`
`(210-vi–AWMFH, rev. 1, July 1996)
`
`11–7
`
`Exhibit 1062
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 11 of 40
`
`

`

`Chapter 11
`
`Waste Utilization
`
`Part 651
`Agricultural Waste Management
`Field Handbook
`
`Example 11-4:
`A dairy operation has a 34,000 cubic foot aboveground
`storage structure that needs to be emptied and a pump
`and pipe system that can deliver 275 gallons per
`minute to the field. A 1,000 gallon tank wagon is avail-
`able to haul manure. It takes 17 minutes to fill the tank
`and make a round trip to the field. The operator esti-
`mates 1 hour of labor for pipe moving for each acre
`inch of waste applied, at a cost of $7 per hour.
`
`Questions:
`
`1. How much actual pumping time is required to
`empty the storage structure using the pump-
`pipeline system? Using the tank wagon?
`2. What is the labor cost for pumping the waste
`to the field as compared to that for using a
`tank wagon and hauling?
`
`Pump-pipeline—
`
`×
`,
`34 000
`12
` ft
` in
`×
`2
`43 560
`1
` ft /ac
` ft
`×
`34 000 12
` in
`43,500
` ac - in
`
`, ,
`
`.
`9 4
`
`3
`
`Storage
`
`=
`
`=
`
`=
`
`Enter figure 11–3 at 9.4 acre-inches pumped and
`proceed vertically to the curves for 250 gpm and 300
`gpm; 275 gpm will be halfway between the curves. Go
`horizontally and read 15.5 hours pumped.
`
`Tank wagon—Enter figure 11–4 at 34,000 cubic feet
`storage. Move up vertically to the curve for a 1,000
`gallon tank wagon. Move horizontally through the
`number of loads line (255 trips) to the cycle time (17
`minutes), which is between the 15 and 20 minutes per
`cycle lines. Then move down vertically to the removal
`time in hours (about 70 hours).
`
`Actual time to remove 34,000 cubic feet is 72.3 hours:
`
` 
`
`×
`
`1 hr
`60 min
`
`17
`
` min/cycle
`
` 
`
`×
`
`3
`
`×
` gal/ft
` ft
`7 5.
`34 000,
`
`
`1,000 gal tank/cycle
`
`3
`
`Pumping would require about 15 hour