Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Ability of yard trimmings compost to mitigate environmental impacts of over-winter field stored poultry.. Milligan, Erica Elaine 2007

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
ubc_2007-0192a.pdf [ 8.13MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0101002.json
JSON-LD: 1.0101002+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0101002.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0101002+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0101002+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0101002+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0101002 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0101002.txt
Citation
1.0101002.ris

Full Text

ABILITY OF YARD TRIMMINGS COMPOST TO MITIGATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF OVER-WINTER FIELD STORED POULTRY LITTER by ERICA ELAINE MILLIGAN B.Sc, The University of Victoria, 2002 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Soil Science) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April 2007 © Erica Elaine Milligan, 2007 Abstract Incorporation of poultry litter (PL) into crop production on British Columbia's Fraser River delta is an important means of recycling this over-abundant agricultural waste product. However, environmental and ecological concerns associated with over winter field storage of PL should be addressed. To mitigate these concerns some farmers have been storing the PL on a 30 cm thick base pad of City of Vancouver yard trimmings compost (YTC) and further covering the pile with a 15 cm thick layer of YTC. A column study was conducted on the UBC, Vancouver campus to assess the effects of the YTC base pad and cover on the quality of leachate emanating from the PL. The YTC layer under the PL decreased (P<0.05) the cumulative Cu, Zn and P leached as compared to the PL alone by 50%, 54% and 30%, but had little ability to retain N or soluble salts. Concentrations in the first flush of leachate out of the PL were reduced by the YTC pad from 25 to 1.3 mg Cu L"1, 11 to 0.95 mg Zn L"1, and 430 to 40 mg P L"1. A key finding was that the YTC cover increased (P<0.05) the leaching of N, Cu and Zn from the underlying PL. A complementary field study was conducted over the same winter in Delta, BC. Three PL storage piles were constructed with and without an YTC pad and/or YTC cover. Soil samples from under and around the piles (0-15 and 15-30cm depths) as well as samples from the YTC base pad were analyzed. Crop development the following spring was negatively impacted under all piles. The YTC pad protected the soil below the core of the pile from leaching due to water table rise however it was less effective under the highly leached outer regions of the piles. Delta farmers are advised to not store PL directly on the soil and to consider the use of an YTC base pad thicker than 30cm. The YTC cover apparently increases leaching, likely due to increased infiltration of precipitation, yet it reduces run-off, and isolates the PL from wildlife. Table of Contents Abstract ii Table of Contents iv List of Tables vii List of Figures ix List of Abbreviations xi Acknowledgements xi1. General introduction and literature review 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.2 BACKGROUND 1.2.1 Poultry litter resource and nutrient management 3 1.2.2 Water quality standards for British Columbia 5 1.2.3 Yard trimmings compost resource 5 1.3 LITERATURE STUDY 1.3.1 Poultry litter storage 7 1.3.2 Compost as a filter 1.3.2.1 Compost defined 9 1.3.2.2 Chemistry and sorption capacity of compost 9 1.3.2.3 Current applications of compost as a filter 10 1.4 OBJECTIVES 12 1.5 HYPOTHESES TO BE TESTED 13 1.6 THESIS ORGANIZATION 4 2. Compost layering effects on poultry litter leaching: A column study 15 2.1 MATERIALS AND METHODS 2.1.1 Experimental design 12.1.2 Time domain reflectrometry 17 2.1.3 Leachate collection and analysis 8 2.1.4 Physical and chemical analyses of initial and final column materials. 19 2.1.5 Statistical analysis 23 2.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 2.2.1 Weather2.2.2 Physical and chemical properties of yard trimmings compost and poultry litter 24 2.2.3 Electrical conductivity 29 iv 2.2.4 Nitrogen 29 2.2.5 Phosphorus 32 2.2.6 Calcium 6 2.2.7 Copper and Zinc 7 2.3 CONCLUSIONS 40 3. Use of yard trimmings compost to mitigate effects of over-winter field storage of poultry litter on soil quality 42 3.1 MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.1.1 Site and pile descriptions 43.1.2 Soil sampling and analysis 3 3.1.3 Poultry litter and yard trimmings compost sampling and analysis 45 3.1.4 Statistical analysis 7 3.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.2.1 Climate 43.2.2 Field Observations 3.2.2.1 Winter 48 3.2.2.2 Summer 50 3.2.3 Soil quality under and around piles 3.23.1 All piles 1 3.2.3.2 Pile 1 3 3.2.3.3 Pile 2 58 3.2.3.4 Pile 3 60 3.2.4 Assessment of yard trimmings compost base pad and covering 64 3.3 CONCLUSIONS 7 4. General discussion and conclusions 4.1 INTRODUCTION 69 4.2 COMPARISONS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF COLUMN AND FIELD STUDIES4.3 POTENTIAL OF YTC BASE PAD AND ASSESSMENT OF APPROPRIATE THICKNESS FOR OVER-WINTER FIELD STORAGE OF POULTRY LITTER 72 4.4 FURTHER APPLICATIONS OF YTC AS A FILTER AND/OR AN ENVIRONMENTAL BUFFER 76 4.5 BROADER PERSPECTIVE 4.5.1 Poultry litter storage options 7 4.5.2 Use of poultry litter in crop production on BC's Fraser Delta 79 4.6 RISK ASSESSMENT 80 4.6.1 Beneficial management practices 81 4.7 ASSESSMENT OF THESIS RESEARCH 4.7.1 Strengths of research 82 4.7.2 Weaknesses of research 3 4.7.3 Status of hypotheses and current state of knowledge 84 4.8 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 85 v References 87 Appendices APPENDIX A - Column construction 93 APPENDIX B - Time domain reflectrometry data 95 APPENDIX C - Column study data 6 APPENDIX D - Field study sampling 108 APPENDIX E - Field study soil data 110 APPENDIX F - Field study YTC and PL data 11vi List of Tables Table Page 1.1 British Columbia water quality guidelines for some leachable nutrients present in poultry litter 5 2.1 Column treatments 16 2.2 Chemical properties of initial column materials 24 2.3 Concentrations of metals in poultry litter and YTC prior to leaching 25 2.4 Particle size distribution of initial column materials 25 2.5 Physical properties of initial column materials 25 2.6 Cation exchange capacity and % base saturation corrected for soluble salts of YTC 26 2.7 Leaching losses of major nutrients from YTC and PL alone columns 28 3.1 Descriptions of experimental poultry litter field storage piles 42 3.2 Field observations of the effects on crop development the summer following over-winter storage of poultry litter 51 3.3 Initial fall nutrient concentrations of the stored poultry litter 52 3.4 Soil pH and concentrations of available nutrients under and around Pile 1 at the end of the storage period 57 3.5 Soil pH and concentrations of available nutrients under and around Pile 3 at the end of the storage period 63 4.1 Comparison of YTC quality with USEPA standards for compost used in erosion control filter berms 71 4.2 Comparison of YTC base pad effects (P < 0.05) in column and field studies 74.3 P, Cu and Zn retention capacities of YTC base pad determined through column study 3 4.4 Potential P, Cu, and Zn retention capacities of a cylindrical section of an YTC base pad of 30 cm diameter and increasing thickness 73 4.5 Cumulative masses of P, Cu and Zn leached from PL alone column over study period 74 B.l Descriptions of locations of TDR probes in columns 95 B. 2 Raw data from TDR measurements over column study 95 C. 1 Total solids content, EC and pH of leachates 96 C.2 Concentrations of nutrients in leachates 100 C.3 Concentrations of metals in leachates 105 C.4 Macro and micro nutrient concentrations of initial YTC packed into columns and YTC layers after leaching 106 C.5 Macro and micro nutrient concentrations of initial PL packed into columns and PL layers after leaching 107 E. l Macro and micro nutrients concentrations of soils collected under and around field piles 110 F. 1 Macro and micro nutrient concentrations of initial YTC sampled in the fall and YTC sampled from various locations within Pile 1 after storage ... 118 F.2 Macro and micro nutrient concentrations of initial poultry litter sampled in the fall and poultry litter after storage sampled from various locations within Piles 1 and 2 119 viii List of Figures Figure Page # 1.1 Map of the Fraser Valley 2 2.1 Electrical conductivities of leachates 29 2.2 Cumulative masses of (a) total N, (b) NH4, and (c) organic N leached during column experiment 30 2.3 Available NH4-N and NO3-N in initial YTC material packed into columns and in YTC layers after leaching 32 2.4 Cumulative masses of (a) total P, (b) dissolved P, and (c) ortho-P leached during column experiment 33 2.5 Variations in concentration of total P in leachates over experiment 34 2.6 Comparison of (a) total P and (b) available P in the initial YTC material packed into the columns and YTC layers after leaching 35 2.7 Cumulative masses of Ca leached from columns 37 2.8 Variations in concentrations of (a) Cu and (b) Zn in leachates over study period 38 2.9 Cumulative masses of (a) Cu and (b) Zn leached from columns 39 3.1 Monthly precipitation at Vancouver international Airport 2005-2006 compared to Environment Canada normals 48 3.2 Average temperatures measured in piles over the winter storage period .... 50 3.3 Effect of Pile 1 on soil (a) EC, (b) NH4-N, and (c) available P at 0-15 cm depth, sampled April 2006 53 3.4 Effect of Pile 2 on soil (a) EC, (b) NH4-N, and (c) available P at 0-15 cm depth sampled April 2006 59 3.5 Effect of Pile 3 on soil (a) EC, (b) NH4-N, and (c) available P, sampled April 2006 61 3.6 Soil NH4-N concentrations under highly leached wet regions of all piles at end of storage period, sampled April 2006 65 3.7 Soil ECs measured under the cores of the piles at the end of the storage period, sampled April 2006 65 A. 1 Photo of upside down column showing the amber tubing used for leachate collection, and the air inlet loop inside the jug 93 A.2 Photo of packing the columns 9A.3 Photo of the top of the column table at Totem field, UBC, Vancouver 94 A.4 Photo of the two columns used for TDR data collection 94 D.l Photograph of excavator cut made for sampling at Pile 1 in the YTC covered section 108 D.2 Sampling spots in the wet outer region of the YTC covered section of Pile 1D.3 Sampling spots from the dry core of Pile 1 109 Abbreviations PL - Poultry litter YTC - Yard trimmings compost Y/PL - Column treatment: yard trimmings compost over poultry litter PL/Y - Column treatment: poultry litter over yard trimmings compost S - Column treatment: "sandwich" ie. yard trimmings compost over poultry litter over yard trimmings compost 1U - Pile 1 uncovered section IC - Pile 1 YTC covered section 2U - Pile 2 uncovered section 2C - Pile 2 YTC covered section EC - Electrical conductivity Db - Dry bulk density Dp - Particle density WHC - Water holding capacity CEC - Cation exchange capacity Acknowledgements First and foremost I'd like to thank Drs. Art Bomke and Wayne Temple for taking me on and giving me the opportunity to participate in a portion of their ongoing research with the Delta farmers. Their longstanding relationship with the Delta farmers was an asset to the success of this thesis. By allowing me to participate in collaborative meetings with industry and government representatives and to present my research in a variety of settings they gave me the chance to see my career options as well as to meet many people within the soil science and agricultural communities. Watching Art calmly juggle his passion for teaching with his many public service positions, basketball games, workshops, seminars, and protests all while riding from place to place on his bicycle was truly inspiring. What I have learned from Art and Wayne is immeasurable. I'd like to thank Yoko Hayakawa, Melissa Iverson, and Will Arnup for their help with the hours of tedious lab work. Their help and company were much appreciated. I'd like to also thank Rick Ketler and Jurgen Pehlke for their support in the construction of the columns. Rick also lent us six TDR probes making that portion of the column experiment possible. I'd also like to thank Dr. Michael Novak for lending me the TDR instrument. The column experiment could not have taken place without the support of Seane Trehearne at the Totem field site. Seane was always extremely helpful, and willing to lend us his tools, shop, hose, or wheel barrow. Thanks to George Rushworth of the Ministry of Environment for his advice regarding water sampling and analysis. I'd also like to thank the White Springs Water Company in Surrey for generously giving us 20 water jugs to be used in the column study. Sietan Chieng was a fountain of information regarding column studies and I thank him for taking the time to share his expertise with me. This thesis would not have been possible without my supervisory committee. I thank Drs. Royann Petrell and Michael Novak for their support and guidance through this intense learning process. Their unique perspectives were an asset. I'd like to give a special thank you to Dr. Les Lavkulich for all of his explanations, editing, advice, and overall support. Without Les I might still be trying to figure out how to get started on writing my results section. Last but not least I'd like to thank my family and friends for their ongoing support, and for putting up with me through the stressful times. Without you I'm sure I would not be finishing this thesis today. 1. General introduction and literature review 1.1 Introduction The lower Fraser Valley extends from Hope to the estuary of the Fraser River. It is characterized by a river delta to the West, a low land plain to the Southeast, and a flood plain extending along the length of the river to the Eastern end of the valley (Figure 1.1). The Fraser Valley consists of diverse wildlife, including many species of migratory birds, and an economically and culturally important salmon run, increasing urban settlement, and some of British Columbia's most productive agricultural land. The Fraser Valley accounts for more than half of the province's gross farm receipts on a small portion of the total agricultural land (Fraser Basin Council (FBC) 2001). Point sources of pollutants in the region are generally well constrained, however it is the non-point sources, such as nutrient overloading in agricultural fields that have become a greater concern. In 2001 the FBC released a document entitled "Nutrient Management Planning Strategies for the Fraser Valley". This document outlined the need to control nutrient inputs (nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K)) to agricultural fields. These inputs come in the forms of animal manures and chemical fertilizers, and need to be controlled in terms of both quantity and timing of application. 1 Figure 1.1 Map of the Fraser Valley (Fraser Basin Council, 2004) Due to the increased intensity of livestock farming in the Surrey to Chilliwack region over the past twenty years, the incorporation of animal manures into crop production throughout the entire Fraser Valley has become a necessary means of disposal of an abundant agricultural waste. However, this raises questions as to the application rates and timing, food safety and wildlife safety with regards to the spread of pathogens, as well as environmental concerns related to over-winter field storage of the manure. The Corporation of Delta receives on average 712 mm of precipitation from October 1st to April 1st (Environment Canada 2004). These high levels of precipitation can lead to leaching, run-off and overland flow of nutrients, salts, and heavy metals from the stored litter. Furthermore, agricultural fields in Delta are subject to a fluctuating water table which commonly causes soil saturation. In the spring there is often an area of stunted or non existent crop growth where the poultry litter was stored over-winter. In order to mitigate these concerns some farmers have been building a 30 cm thick base pad out of City of Vancouver yard trimmings compost (YTC) on which the manure is stored, and additionally covering the pile with a 15 cm thick layer of YTC. Preliminary observations indicate that this pad and covering protect the soil below from excessive nutrients and salinity (Bomke and 2 Temple 2004). In the spring, the compost base pad and covering are thoroughly mixed with the poultry litter and spread evenly over the field. Thus any nutrients lost from the manure and trapped in the YTC remain available for crop growth. 1.2 Background 1.2.1 Poultry litter resource and nutrient management Since the mid-1980s the intensity of poultry farming in the lower Fraser Valley, particularly the Surrey to Chilliwack region, has increased dramatically. From 1986 to 1996 the chicken and hen production increased from 6.9 million to 10.7 million birds, while the number of these farms decreased by 5% from 1454 to 1380 (FBC 2001). From 1991 to 1996 the turkey production increased from 646 000 to 795 000 birds (Schreier et al. 2000). This increase in the number of poultry in the region has forced farmers to import more feed from Alberta and Saskatchewan, thus increasing the region's nutrient surplus. Furthermore, in the Abbotsford region, where crop cultivation occurs over the Abbotsford-Sumas aquifer there has been a shift away from the production of high N demanding forage crops to low nutrient requiring raspberries. The combination of the over application of poultry manure and the cultivation of low nutrient requiring crops has led to very high N levels in the Abbotsford-Sumas aquifer, and nitrate (NO3) concentrations which are commonly above drinking water standards (Table 1.1) (FBC 2001). This has also led to aquatic habitat degradation, thus putting at risk economically and socially important salmon runs (FBC 2001). Because of this, over the past 10 years there has been a concerted effort to control the amount of manure applied to agricultural fields, and to move excess poultry manure to more manure poor regions (i.e. less livestock production) of the Fraser Valley, such as the Fraser River delta. 3 In 2000-2001 the Fraser Valley produced approximately 240 000 tonnes of poultry manure, 17 175 tonnes of which were moved via the Sustainable Poultry Farming Group to markets distant from the poultry producing regions of the Fraser Valley (Timmenga and Associates Inc 2003). Forty-nine percent of this was shipped to the Corporation of Delta. In 2004-2005 the total manure production in the Fraser Valley had continued to increase however the amount shipped to Delta had decreased to 2330 tonnes (Chipperfield 2005). The main reasons for this decline in poultry litter use cited by Delta farmers were the environmental regulations (discussed in the literature study) associated with the storage of the manure, and increasing food safety concerns related to pathogens (Chipperfield 2005). Poultry litter is a mixture of poultry manure, feathers, and bedding material, usually wood shavings or sawdust, which is removed from poultry barns upon clean-out. It is generally high in N, P and salts, as compared to other manures. The exact nutrient content depends on the type of poultry litter (i.e. chicken broiler, commercial egg, hatching egg, or turkey), however in general on a dry weight basis the P2O5 equivalent is 2.5 - 3.0% or 11-13 g P kg"1 poultry litter, the K20 content is 1.2 - 1.6% or 10-13 g K kg"1 poultry litter, and the ammonium-N (NH4-N) content is 0.4 - 0.7% or 3-6 g NH4-N kg"1 poultry litter (SPFG 1996). The major environmental concerns surrounding the use of poultry litter are volatilization of ammonia and nitrous oxides which are harmful atmospheric pollutants, nitrate leaching especially into groundwater used for drinking which can cause methaemoglobinaemia or blue baby syndrome, P build up in soils, unpleasant odors, and the spread of pathogens. In 2004 avian influenza broke out in the Fraser Valley. Since then, public perception surrounding the use and storage of poultry manure has become increasingly important. . 4 In addition to high levels of nutrients poultry litter contains heavy metals (on average 35 mg kg"1 Pb, 150-390 mg kg"1 Cu, 400-850 mg kg"1 Zn on a dry weight basis), antibiotics, antioxidants, mould inhibitors, hormones, and other organic compounds (Gupta et al. 1992; Gupta et al. 2005; Brock et al. 2006). Poultry litter leachate at concentrations of 2.9 g L"1 aqueous extract has been shown to be toxic to many organisms. This toxicity has been largely attributed to the presence of ammonia and heavy metals (Gupta et al. 1992). For these reasons it is extremely important that poultry litter is stored in such a way as to prevent any leachate from flowing directly into nearby waterways or seeping into groundwater. 1.2.2 Water quality standards for British Columbia The British Columbia Ministry of Environment water quality guidelines for some nutrients and metals present in poultry litter leachate are listed in Table 1.1. The acceptable limits for drinking water for human consumption, freshwater aquatic organisms, marine aquatic organisms, and wildlife are tabulated. TABLE 1.1 British Columbia water quality guidelines for some leachable nutrients present in poultry litter Water NO3-N NO2-N NH3-NZ Cu Zn Type (mgL1) (pgL1) Drinking 10 1 None 500 5000 water Freshwater 40 0.02 1.84 2 7.5-240y aquatic life Marine life None None 1.0 3 10 Wildlife 100 10 None 300 None (Government of British Columbia 2006) zAt pH 7.0 and 10.0°C; yDepends upon hardness of water. 1.2.3 Yard trimmings compost resource In 1995 the City of Vancouver Landfill began collecting yard trimmings from residents of Vancouver, Delta, Richmond, White Rock and parts of Surrey. Over 37, 000 5 tonnes of yard trimmings, including grass clippings, leaves, plant remains, trees and branches are collected and composted each year (City of Vancouver Landfill 2005). The composting process begins with grinding the yard trimmings into maximum 7 cm long pieces. These are windrowed and turned by a front end loader approximately 5 times over a period of 3 months. This turning of the pile ensures that aeration is complete, and that all portions of the windrow reach temperatures of 55-60°C. After the 5 turns are complete, the compost is formed into a new windrow which is left to cure for 9 months. After the 9 months have passed, the compost is passed through a 1.25 cm screen. The coarse fraction is re-composted with poultry litter, and the fine fraction is the finished yard trimmings compost (YTC). The finished YTC is much lower in N, P, salts and heavy metals than poultry litter (Refer to Tables 2.2 and 2.3 for analysis of the materials used in this study). Furthermore, the levels of organochlorine, carbamate, and organonitrogen pesticides were all below the detection limits according to analyses performed by Cantest Ltd. in Burnaby, BC for the City of Vancouver Landfill in March 2006. In order to foster good relations between the City of Vancouver and the Delta farmers, the City has funded some research into the incorporation of YTC into agricultural practices. It has been used as a carbon (C) source in the composting of poultry litter for organic agricultural uses, as a filler in the spreading of manure for low N requiring crops, and as a base pad and cover material for the over winter storage of poultry litter in agricultural fields (Bomke and Temple 2004). This thesis is focused on a more detailed study of this last application. 6 1.3 Literature study The literature study will cover the issues and regulations surrounding the field storage of poultry litter, as well as the capacity of compost to act as a filter. 1.3.1 Poultry litter storage There are many concerns associated with the storage of livestock manures in agricultural fields. Among these are the leaching of nutrients, such as NO3 and PO4 which are responsible for the eutrophication of streams and rivers, volatilization of N compounds especially NH3, and the spread of pathogens such as Escherichia Coli, Campylobacter, and Salmonella. These concerns are exacerbated by high levels of precipitation. Ideally animal manures in regions of high precipitation should be stored on an impermeable surface far from any water ways, completely covered with a roof, and surrounded by a leachate collection ditch followed by some level of treatment. Precipitation running off of the roof should be managed in such a way that it does not come into contact with the manure (Government of British Columbia 1995). Unfortunately, this is not always possible due to the huge amounts of manure being produced in certain regions coupled with the high cost of such manure storage facilities. On-farm storage of poultry litter is regulated by the British Columbia "Agricultural Waste Control Regulation" (BC reg. 131/92) (Government of British Columbia 1992). This regulation states that animal manures, including poultry litter, can be stored in an agricultural field given that certain conditions are met. First, the material must not be stored on the field for more than 9 months. Second, the material must be located at least 30 meters from any water way or any source of water used for domestic purposes in a manner which prevents the escape of agricultural waste that causes pollution. This might require dykes, berms, or other 7 measures which isolate the material from nearby water ways. Finally, in regions that receive more than 600 mm of precipitation from October 1st to April 1st, such as the Fraser River delta, the regulation requires that the material be covered for this time period, however, there is no indication as to what the cover material should be (Government of British Columbia 1992). In the Fraser Valley it is common practice to make late summer and early fall deliveries of poultry litter which will be field applied the following spring. This removes the poultry litter from the poultry producing region and transfers the storage responsibilities to the crop producer. For over-winter field storage, the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Lands factsheet suggests shaping the poultry litter pile into a windrow (ie. triangular cross-section), and covering with a tarpaulin weighted down using tires (Government of British Columbia 1995). The goal of the cover is to prevent precipitation from entering into the pile, thus preventing leaching and run-off from the manure. Conversely, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs suggests piling the manure with a broad, flat top, to encourage infiltration of precipitation, and thus discouraging run-off (Government of Ontario 2005). They further suggest covering the pile with a breathable or partial tarpaulin cover, although this is not legislated. A wide range of options for covering manure piles exist. These include impermeable covers, such as tarpaulins and roofs, and permeable covers such as geotextile fabrics, straw, peat moss, and cornstalks. Permeable covers act as biofilters, and aim to decrease NH3 volatilization, provide thermal insulation, control run-off, and essentially isolate the manure from the surrounding environment. In field experiments, Berg et al. (2005) found that a 7 cm thick layer of straw over pig slurry decreased NH3 volatilization by up to 75%. However, 8 Rodhe and Karlsson (2002) found that a straw cover on stored poultry litter had no effect on NH3 losses due to volatilization, and that the positive effects of the straw cover were thermal insulation and control of run-off and leaching. Puumala (2001) found that a peat cover on stored poultry litter decreased NH3 volatilization by 80 - 90%. Initially, Delta farmers attempted to cover their poultry litter windrows with tarpaulins. However, these were expensive, blew off during frequent winter wind storms, and were stolen. This led them to the unique idea of using the City of Vancouver YTC as a cover. 1.3.2 Compost as a filter 1.3.2.1 Compost defined Compost is defined as "a solid mature product resulting from composting, which is a managed process of bio-oxidation of a solid heterogeneous organic substrate including a thermophilic phase" (Composting Council of Canada 2000). According to the Composting Council of Canada, the compost should be left to cure for at least 21 days, and it is deemed mature once the following conditions are met: C:N is <25, upon standing the pile does not heat up to more than 20° C above ambient temperature, the reduction in organic matter is greater than 60% by weight, and the oxygen uptake rate is less than 125 mg O2 kg"1 volatile solids per hour. 1.3.2.2 Chemistry and sorption capacity of compost Compost consists mainly of humus-like organic materials resulting from aerobic decomposition (Brady and Weil 2002). Humus can be divided into humic and non-humic substances, with the humic substances being further divided into humin, humic acids and fulvic acids. Humic substances are complex, resistant, polymeric compounds with many 9 functional groups (Brady and Weil 2002). These functional groups can lose or gain protons, and thus have the capacity to sorb other compounds. Due to the complex chemical structure of organic matter, the pH dependent cation exchange capacity (CEC) is high, with CEC increasing with increasing pH (Lax et al. 1986). Saharinen et al. (1998) have shown that CEC increases with composting because as composting progresses the degree of humification increases, thus producing a greater number of functional groups for cation adsorption and exchange. In this study, the elevated pH of the poultry litter leachate should serve to increase the CEC of the YTC base pad in both the column and field experiments, thus improving the CEC and overall retention capacity of the YTC material. Brewer and Sullivan (2003) found that mature, cured YTC had a CEC of 400 cmolc kg"1 of compost C at pH 7.0. The mineral fraction of compost also possesses negatively charged sites, e.g. OH", which can bind metals and nutrients (Grimes et al. 1999). In this study, cations such as NH4, Zn and Cu should be attracted to the negatively charged sites present in the YTC base pad, while anions such as NO3, PO4, and sulphate (SO4) should flow through freely. However, other P compounds could be retained through reaction with Ca and Mg under alkaline conditions. The pH of the YTC is about 7.0 while the pH of the leachate emanating from the poultry litter is 8.0. For this reason it is to be expected that Ca complexation will be an important mechanism for P retention in the YTC base pad. 1.3.2.3 Current applications of compost as a filter Since the 1950s, compost has commonly been used as the filter medium in the biofiltration of gas streams containing low concentrations of volatile organic compounds, pollutants, reduced N and sulfur (S) compounds, and odorous compounds (Haug 1993). 10 Furthermore, there is a wide body of literature on the use of peat, wetlands and constructed wetlands for the removal of heavy metals from wastewaters (Karathanasis and Thompson 1993; Couillard 1994; Manios et al. 2003). The mechanisms by which metals are removed from wastewaters in wetlands include ion exchange, and adsorption onto clay, organic and inorganic compounds (Manios et al. 2003). Metal removal efficiencies of these systems have been found to increase with increasing organic matter content, and substrates high in Ca, Mg, and fulvic acids were shown to retain heavy metals most efficiently (Karathanasis and Thompson 1993). It follows then that compost, with its high organic matter content, should behave in a similar manner as peat in the uptake of metals. To examine this Manios et al. (2003) used mature sewage sludge compost mixed with straw as the substrate in pot experiments, irrigated with solutions of increasing metal concentrations. They found that the compost retained up to 100% of the added Cu and Zn, and that the percent retention of the metal increased as the metal concentration in solution increased from 10 mg L"1 up to 80 mg L1. Recently, there has been some research into the ability of compost to act as a filter for storm and waste waters. Mature compost storm water filter systems have been shown to be effective at treating non-point source pollution by removing P, nutrients, solvents, pesticides, herbicides, silt, Zn, Pb, Cd and Cu (Garland 1995). One system uses high grade mature leaf compost as the filter material (Conrad 1995). The leaf compost acts as a physical filter to sediment, it binds ionic pollutants (mainly metals) through cation exchange, and it adsorbs and degrades organic compounds such as oil and grease. The properties of the leaf compost include high permeability, high humic acid content, low nutrient levels, and high stability. 11 Compost filter berms as well as compost blankets are being applied to roadsides, construction sites, and other disturbed sites in the United States to prevent soil erosion (United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2006). Compost blankets, which are comparable to the YTC covering layer on field stored poultry litter windrows, focus first on reducing erosion through improved infiltration rates and thus reduced run-off. Faucette et al. (2005) found that compost blankets of 3.75 cm thickness delayed the onset of run-off by 15 minutes under intense rainfall (i.e. 77.5 mm h"1) conditions, and reduced the total solids in the run-off by up to 99% as compared to bare soil. However, compost blankets high in inorganic forms of N and P were found to release significant quantities of these nutrients in run-off waters. These were greatly reduced in composts with a high percentage of organic N, organic C and Ca (Faucette et al. 2005). Compost filter berms are generally placed across a hillside, and serve to retain and filter run-off water moving downslope. According to an USEPA fact sheet, these filter berms have been shown to remove sediment, motor oil, and other pollutants from stormwater (USEPA 2006). A study commissioned by the Department of Environmental Quality for the State of Oregon found that yard waste compost filter berms reduced total solids and turbidity in run-off waters by 83% and 67%, respectively (Jurries 2004). This is an important finding, as most pollutants enter waterways sorbed onto the surfaces of suspended particles such as clays and organic matter. 1.4 Objectives This thesis is a portion of a larger project. The broad goal of the entire project is to facilitate the use of poultry litter as an organic fertilizer in crop rotations of both conventional 12 and organic producers in the more nutrient poor region of the Fraser Valley, namely the Fraser River delta, in a precise manner with minimal harm to the surrounding environment. The objective of this thesis was to examine the capacity of the City of Vancouver yard trimmings compost to mitigate the environmental impacts of over-winter field stored poultry litter. A column study, including a detailed laboratory characterization of the YTC and poultry litter materials, and a field study of three poultry litter storage piles were conducted in order to answer the following questions (sub-objectives): 1) What are the physical characteristics of the YTC and poultry litter? 2) What effect do the YTC base pad and/or cover have on the quality of leachate emanating from the poultry litter and how does this change over the storage period? 3) If the YTC base pad is improving the quality of leachate coming from the poultry litter, through what mechanisms is this occurring? 4) What are the soil characteristics directly under and surrounding poultry litter field storage piles in the presence or absence of the YTC base pad and/or cover as compared to the rest of the agricultural field after over-winter storage? 1.5 Hypotheses to be tested 1) In the experimental piles and columns, the YTC base pad will sorb metals, salts, and nutrients being leached from the poultry litter layers above, thus improving the quality of the leachate reaching the surrounding environment. The cation exchange capacity of the YTC material will be an integral part of this sorption. 2) The soil quality directly underneath the poultry litter storage piles lacking an YTC base pad will be degraded and crop growth the following spring will be stunted, as 13 compared to the rest of the field and to the site where the poultry litter storage pile was built on an YTC base pad. 3) The soil surrounding the stored poultry litter which is covered by the YTC will be less affected by run-off from the poultry litter storage pile (i.e. lower in salts and ammonium) as compared to the soil surrounding the uncovered poultry litter storage piles. 1.6 Thesis organization The thesis describes two experiments; a column study and a field study. Chapters 2 and 3 address the methods, results, discussions and conclusions of the two experiments separately. This was done for clarity as the two experiments were performed entirely separately. Chapter 2 specifically addresses sub-objectives one through three, while Chapter 3 addresses sub-objectives two and four. Chapter 4 synthesizes the results from the two experiments, discusses the broader perspective, draws conclusions and suggests future work. The thesis and citations are formatted according to the journal Compost Science and Utilization, as the column study chapter will be submitted to this journal in the future. 14 2. Compost layering effects on poultry litter leaching; A column study In order to assess the effectiveness of the YTC base pad and covering in protecting soil and water quality from field stored poultry litter, an outdoor column experiment was initiated at the University of British Columbia - Vancouver. The objective was to monitor the leachate quality emanating from the YTC, PL, and combinations thereof in a controlled manner which mimicked manure storage conditions in the field. 2.1 Materials and Methods 2.1.1 Experimental design The experiment was set up at the Totem Field site on the University of British Columbia, Vancouver campus. Sixteen columns constructed out of tapered 12 L and 19 L food grade rigid plastic pails, measuring 30 cm across the top and 26 cm across the bottom, were placed into a wooden table. It has been proven that if the ratio of the column diameter to the effective particle diameter is greater than eight, then the channeling effect near the column wall is negligible (Sheikhzadeh et al. 2004). It is further recommended that a ratio of 15:1 be used for precautionary reasons. As the particle size in the poultry litter and YTC is variable and sometimes quite large (>25 mm), a column diameter of 30 cm was chosen for this experiment. The columns were cut and packed so that the materials were flush with the top of the pail. For drainage purposes the bottom surface of each column had thirty-one 6.35 mm holes drilled in three concentric circles radiating out at 3, 6 and 12 cm from a central hole. The bottom of each pail was lined with a piece of 18 x 16 mesh fiberglass window screen, covered with a 2 cm thick layer of 1.3 cm diameter gravel, and another piece of window screen. The YTC and poultry litter were packed on top of this drainage layer, which was 15 based on the design used by Dr. Sietan Chieng in his column experiments used to study soil water movement (Chieng, 2003). Each layer of YTC or poultry litter was 14 cm thick, as this was deemed to be the maximum amount which could be supported by the pails and table without any breakage once saturated with rain water, particularly in the three layered treatments. Field bulk density (Db) measurements were made on the YTC base pad, YTC cover material and poultry litter in an experimental field storage pile using a modified rubber balloon method with four replications. This method consists of removing and weighing a volume of material, placing a plastic bag in the hole and filling it with water in order to determine the mass per unit volume (Blake 1965). The masses of poultry litter and YTC were packed into the columns in an attempt to replicate the field Db. Values were 279, 477, and 300 kg m"3 for the poultry litter, YTC base pad, and YTC covering layers. The column treatments are listed in Table 2.1. TABLE 2.1 Column treatments. Treatment description Abbreviation 14 cm YTC C 14 cm poultry litter PL 14 cm YTC over 14 cm poultry litter Y/P14 cm poultry litter over 14 cm YTC PITY 14 cm YTC over 14 cm poultry litter over 14 cm YTC S There were five main treatments with three replicates each for a total of 15 experimental units. Additionally, there was an empty column which served as a rain gauge. The treatments, including the rain gauge were randomly assigned to positions on the table. The columns were set up on November 8, 2005 and were left exposed to the weather until March 29, 2006. To catch the leachate, 19 L inverted water jugs with their bottoms sawn off were attached flush to the bottom of the pails. Number 10 rubber bungs were used to plug the 16 spout. Two holes were drilled into each bung, one for drainage and one as an air inlet. A 10 cm long piece of rigid PVC pipe was inserted into one of the holes. A 10 cm piece of amber latex tubing (9.5 mm o.d. x 6.4 mm i.d.) was attached to the pipe and closed with a hose clamp. To prevent an airlock during drainage another piece of rigid PVC pipe was inserted into the second hole in the bung pointing up into the water jug. A stiff portion of food grade PVC tubing (11.1 mm o.d. x 7.9 mm i.d.) was attached to the pipe inside the water jug and looped around. This allowed for air to enter, while preventing the leakage of any leachate (Refer to Appendix A for photographs of column construction). The YTC used in the columns was obtained directly from the City of Vancouver Landfill in clean plastic garbage pails. The poultry litter was also collected in plastic garbage pails from a pile of freshly delivered turkey litter. These pails were sealed with plastic lids and stored outside under cover at the Totem Field site until the columns were ready for packing (approximately 2 weeks). 2.1.2 Time domain reflectometry In two of the columns time domain reflectometry (TDR) was used to monitor the moisture content of different layers, and thus the movement of water through the columns. The two selected columns were a PL column and an S column. The TDR probes consisted of three steel welding rods, 26cm in length, passed through three parallel holes drilled into a number nine rubber bung which was inserted into a hole cut into the side of the pail. This insured that the rods remained parallel and in one single plane in the medium. Two probes were inserted horizontally at two depths in the PL column, and four probes were inserted horizontally into the different layers in the S column. Due to the high salinity of the poultry litter and subsequent high electrical conductivity (EC) of the media, there was often no signal 17 reflection and thus no moisture content could be obtained. This was a problem in all layers at some point throughout the experiment and thus these data have been omitted from this paper. (These data are tabulated in Appendix B.) 2.1.3 Leachate Collection and Analysis The leachate was collected from the columns on a weekly or bi-weekly basis contingent on the amount of precipitation received. Upon collection, the volume, pH and EC were determined. These were the only determinations made on the samples collected from the rain gauge. EC was determined directly on a Beckman Solu-Bridge conductivity meter, while pH was measured using an Orion Research analogue pH meter model 300. Depending on the colour of the leachate, 20 to 100 mL from each column was dried at 60°C for 72 hours to determine the total solids (TS). The solids were subsequently heated in a muffle furnace at 425°C for 3 hours in order to determine the ash content and the volatile fraction of the solids. The rest of the analyses were carried out by Maxxam Analytics Inc. in Burnaby, BC. Quality assurance reports were issued with each batch of samples which included data on matrix spikes, spikes, and blanks. The first leachate sample collected from each treatment was composited and analyzed for total metals, and nutrients (NH4, NO3, nitrite (NO2), dissolved-P, ortho-P, total N, and total P). Each subsequent leachate sample was analyzed individually (three replicates for each treatment) for nutrients and total metals until the eighth collection date by which time the metal concentrations had become very low (near zero). After this collection date leachates were analyzed only for nutrients. Samples to be analyzed for nutrients were stored on ice packs in a cooler within one hour of collection. Samples to be analyzed for total metals were preserved with 2 mL of 18 HNO3 and then stored on ice packs. All samples were taken to Maxxam Analytics in a cooler on ice packs and analyzed within 48 hours of collection. Maxxam Analytics determined the total metals using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICPMS) following EPA SW846 Method 6020A (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2006). All nutrients were analyzed using automated colorimetric techniques, following the Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater 19th and 20th editions (American Public Health Association 1995 and 1998). 2.1.4 Physical and Chemical Analyses of Initial and Final Column Materials The properties determined for both the YTC and poultry litter were gravimetric moisture content, particle size distribution, percent ash and organic matter (OM), pH, EC, particle density (Dp), Db, total porosity, water holding capacity (WHC), CEC, water extractable P and metals, and total and available nutrients. These properties were determined for the starting materials used to pack the columns. Total and available nutrients, OM, and ash content were also determined on each layer in each of the columns at the completion of the leaching experiment. The gravimetric moisture content was determined on four replicate samples used in the column experiment immediately upon collection of the materials. These were dried in moisture cans at 60°C for 72 hours due to their organic natures. The moisture content, 9, was then calculated using the following equation, where Ww is the wet weight and Wd is the dry weight: 9 = (Ww - Wd) Ww 1 x 100% Eq. (1) Particle size analysis was carried out on four replicate 200 g samples of air dried material. Sieve sizes used were 25, 16, 9.5, 6.3, 4.75, and 2 mm, similar to what was 19 suggested by the Test Methods for the Examination of Composting and Compost (TMECC) manual method 02.02 (Thompson et al. 2001). The 2 mm sieve was added due to the large fraction of small particles in both the poultry litter and YTC. Sieves were shaken on an Eberbach shaker for 2 minutes, and the size fractions weighed. Size fractions were determined as follows, where f is a particular size fraction, Mf is the weight of the size fraction, and M0 is the initial weight of the total sample: %f = (Mf )M0"1 x 100% Eq. (2) Ash and OM were determined in a muffle furnace on four replicates of a 5 g oven dried sample following the TMECC manual method 03.02B (Thompson et al. 2001). This method suggested a temperature of 550°C for 2 hours. Percent loss on ignition or percent OM was calculated as follows: %OM = (Initial weight - Final weight) (Initial weight)"1 x 100% Eq. (3) %Ash = 100 - %OM Eq. (4) EC and pH of the YTC and PL samples were determined in accordance with the TMECC manual method 04.10A (Thompson et al. 2001). This method recommended extracting a 9.5 mm sieved moist sample, however only air dried material was available. The extraction ratio was 1:5 compost: water (mass basis) with twenty minutes of shaking on an Eberbach shaker. The slurry was decanted prior to measurement of EC and pH. A Beckman Solu-Bridge conductivity meter was used to measure EC, while an Orion Research analogue pH meter model 300 was used for determination of pH. Particle density in kg m"3 (Dp) was calculated using percent ash and OM as described by Agnew, et al (2003). Dp = [%OM(1550)"' + %Ash(2650)"']"' Eq. (5) 20 This equation assumes a specific gravity of 1.55 for volatile solids or OM, and 2.65 for ash. Total porosity (TP) was calculated based on the DD packed into the column, and the particle density (Dp) calculated above. TP = [1 - DbDp-'] x 100% Eq. (6) Water holding capacity (WHC) was determined by packing a sample at known density into a pail with a perforated bottom. The pail was then placed into a tub of water and the level of the water was slowly raised up over a period of four hours. Once the sample was saturated the pail was removed from the tub and allowed to drain freely for a period of 24 hours, as recommended by the TMECC method 03.01C (Thompson et al. 2001). At the end of the draining period the samples were weighed again and the WHC on a weight basis (kg water kg"1 material) was calculated as follows: WHC = (Wt. wet material after drain 24h - Wt. dry) (Wt. dry)"1 Eq. (7) The CEC was determined for the YTC only using the ammonium acetate method, buffered to pH 7.0 as described by Chapman (1965) in Methods of Soil Analysis. This method was selected because the pH values of both the YTC and the leachate emanating from the YTC material were approximately seven. A sample of air-dried YTC material was ground using a Wiley Mill with a 1 mm screen. Three replicates of a 5 g sample were shaken with ammonium acetate (buffered to pH 7.0) and filtered. The exchangeable cations Ca, Mg, K, and Na were determined in the filtrate using atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS). The sample was then washed with iso-propanol, leached with 1M KC1, and re-filtered. The filtrate was analyzed for NH4 using a semi-micro Kjeldahl digest on a Lachat QuikChem FIA 8000 series. 21 In order to correct the exchangeable cations for soluble salts a method for the determination of water extractable P and metals was adapted from Wolf et al. (2005). This method consisted of shaking a 1:200 moist as received manure or compost to distilled water slurry for 60 minutes and then filtering through a Whatman no. 40 filter paper. This method was carried out on an air-dried sample ground to pass a 1 mm sieve, as was used for the CEC determination. All extracts were analyzed for P, Ca, Mg, Na, K, Cu and Zn by ICP. Available NH4-N, NO3-N, Bray-Pi, K, Ca, Mg, Na, Cu, Zn, Fe, and Mn, as well as total C, S, N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Na, Cu, Zn, Fe, Mn, and B were determined by Pacific Soil Analysis Inc, in Richmond, BC for the initial YTC and PL materials, as well as for each layer from each of the column treatments after leaching. Available NH4-N and NO3-N were determined using a K2SO4 extract. The NH4-N was determined colorimetrically on a Technicon Autoanalyzer, and the NO3-N was determined by the CTA colour development method and measured on a Turner colorimeter (Lavkulich 1978). Available P (Bray-Pi) was determined colorimetrically using the ascorbic acid colour development method on a 1:10 YTC or PL to Bray-P! (0.03 N NH4F in 0.025 N HC1) extract (McKeague 1978). Available Ca, Mg, Na, and K were determined on a Perkin-Elmer AAS using a 1:5 YTC or PL to 1M ammonium acetate extract buffered to pH 7.0 (McKeague 1978). Available Cu, Zn, Fe, and Mn were determined by Perkin-Elmer AAS on a 1:5 YTC or PL to 0.1N HC1 extract (McKeague 1978). Available S04-S was determined using the Hi-Bismuth Reducible method on a 1:2 YTC or PL to CaCl2 extract (Kowalenko 1993). Total C was determined directly on a LECO CR 12 Carbon Analyzer (McKeague 1978). Total S was determined directly on a LECO Sulfur Analyzer (Lavkulich 1978). Total N, P, K, Ca, Mg, and Na were determined using the Parkinson and Allen digest analyzed on a Perkin-Elmer AAS (Lavkulich 1978). 22 Total Cu, Zn, Fe, Mn, and B were determined by dry-ashing the sample for four hours at 480°C, dissolving the ash in 5.0N HCI and analyzing on a Perkin-Elmer AAS (Lavkulich 1978). 2.1.5 Statistical Analysis All data were subjected to a one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) using SAS Institute Inc. "JMPIN" statistical package, version 4.0.4 (JMP 2001). Upon a significant F-value for treatment, mean comparisons were performed using Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference at an alpha level of 0.05. 2.2 Results and Discussion 2.2.1 Weather November 2005 was drier than average, and the first half of December was very dry, with the City of Vancouver receiving only 7.8 mm of precipitation prior to December 19th (Environment Canada 2005-2006). January 2006 was extremely wet, receiving 284 mm of precipitation compared to the average of 154 mm (Environment Canada 2004). In contrast February was a particularly dry month receiving less than half of that month's average precipitation (57 mm compared to 123 mm). The result of this was that most of the nutrients and metals were leached out by the end of January. These unusual weather patterns raise questions as to the leachability of nutrients and metals in both the poultry litter and YTC, and how this is affected by the time between piling these materials in the field and the first notable precipitation event, as well as the intensity of those precipitation events. The series of intense rainfall events which occurred over a short period of time in January resulted in short contact times between the leachate emanating from the poultry litter and the YTC base pad material through which it flowed. More evenly distributed rainfall events would have likely 23 led to slower flow of leachate through the YTC base pad, and consequently longer contact times resulting in an increased likelihood of retention of nutrients and metals. 2.2.2 Physical and Chemical Properties of YTC and PL The physical and chemical properties of the YTC and PL materials prior to leaching are listed in Tables 2.2 through 2.6. The YTC from the City of Vancouver Landfill typically has a much lower NH4-N (average 500-600 mg kg"1) and total N (average 10-15 g kg"1) content than the YTC obtained for this study (City of Vancouver 2005). The high NH4-N values in the YTC used in this study probably resulted from an insufficient curing time after composting. Brewer and Sullivan (2003) found that an NH4-N: NO3-N ratio of less than four indicated that yard waste compost was mature. The ratio of NH4-N: NO3-N in the initial YTC used in this study was 4.2, thus signaling that it was not completely mature or stabilized. All other properties of the YTC compared well with average values reported by the City of Vancouver Landfill. TABLE 2.2 Chemical properties of initial column materials. Dry weight basis; n = 3 Property YTC PL EC (dS m"1) 2.9 ±0.1 12 ±0.01 PH 7.1 ±0.1 7.2 ± 0.06 C/N (mass basis) 13 ±2 10 ±0.6 Total C(g kg1) 263 ± 20 360 ±6 Total N(g kg"1) 21 ±4 35 ±2 Total P(g kg"1) 3.1 ±0.2 22 ±2 Total S(g kg"1) 3.0 ±0.3 5.0 ±0.9 NH4-N - available (mg kg"1) 1250±130 4950 ± 340 NO3-N- available (mg kg"1) P - available (mg kg" ) 295 ± 13 710 ±37 1490 ± 103 10 390 ± 530 P - water extractable (mg kg"1) 380 ±7 7240 ± 110 Error bars indicate one standard deviation from the mean. 24 TABLE 2.3 Concentrations of metals in poultry litter and YTC prior to leaching. Dry weight basis; n = 3 Metal (mg kg'1) YTC PL Cu - available 3±1 110 ± 5 Cu - total 47 ±3 390 ± 20 Zn - available 76 ±4 380 ±31 Zn - total 190 ± 12 470 ± 19 K - available 10 940 ±315 15 000 ±410 K - total 12 030 ± 1180 16 880 ± 620 Ca - available 4830 ±134 875 ±158 Ca - total 18 300 ±600 35 700 ± 2500 Mg - available 1560 ± 72 750 ± 35 Mg - total 2800 ± 330 4900 ± 360 Na - available 425 ± 20 2860 ±180 Na - total 930 ± 50 3300 ±160 Fe - available 1240 ± 214 170 ± 18 Fe - total 9830 ± 849 1160 ±64 Mn - available 185 ± 13 380 ±23 Mn - total 280 ±3 440 ± 13 TABLE 2.4 Particle size distribution of initial column materials, n = 4 Fraction of material within size interval Sample >25 mm 25-16 16-9.5 mm 9.5-6.3 6.3-4.75 4.75-2 < 2 mm mm mm mm mm (%) YTC 0.3 ±0.3 0.9 ± 0.5 9.1 ±5.3 9.9 ±3.7 4.3 ± 1.2 52 ± 7.4 24 ± 1.0 PL 17 ± 11 4.3 ±2.9 3.7 ±0.6 4.1 ±1.1 3.1 ±0.8 19 ±4.3 49 ± 8.7 TABLE 2.5 Physical properties of initial column materials, n = 4 Sample Mass Db OM Ash Zfp WHC (kg) (kgrn3) (%) (%) (kg m"3) (%) (kg kg1) YTC py 3.82 477 48.8 ±1.8 51.3 ± 1.8 1970 ± 19 75.8 ±0.2 0.4 ± 0.007 YTC cy 2.80 300 48.8 ± 1.8 51.3 ±1.8 1970 ±19 84.8 ±0.1 -PL 2.32 279 79.2 ±0.6 20.8 ±0.6 1700 ± 5 83.6 ±0.04 1.7 ±0.09 ztp indicates total porosity. yp- indicates base pad, c-indicates cover. 25 TABLE 2.6 Cation exchange capacity and % base saturation corrected for soluble salts of YTC. n = 3 Ca Mg K Na CEC CECZ % Base cmolc kg"1 dry YTC (cmolc kg"1 C) Saturation YTC avg 51.4 17.2 24.9 1.28 57.5 220 94.8 Std dev. 2.2 0.01 3.3 0.07 1.6 2.3 1.1 ZCEC calculated based on the total carbon content of the YTC. The nutrient analysis of the poultry litter used in this study was characteristic of turkey litter produced in the Fraser Valley (Chipperfield 1996). An important characteristic of turkey litter is its variable particle size which includes large clumps, fine dust, and feathers. This fact makes obtaining a representative sample for analysis challenging. The density of the YTC base pad measured on the experimental storage pile in the field was extremely high (711 ± 30 kg m"3), because it had been driven on several times by a front end loader. It was very challenging to re-create this density in the columns. It was deemed to be not critical and a lower density was used. The DD of the YTC base pad layer in the columns was 1.6 times higher than the YTC covering layer. In the field the Db of the YTC base pad was actually 2.4 times higher than the YTC covering layer. The result of this would be a decrease in total porosity and an increase in WHC, and nutrient and metal retention potentials per unit volume by the YTC base pad layer in the field as compared to the experimental columns. The Db values of each of the poultry litter layers in the various column treatments were the same as was measured in the field. The CEC of the YTC was 57.5 ± 1.6 cmolc kg"1 dry matter, or 220 ± 2.3 cmolc kg"1 C. This value is much lower than the 400 cmolc kg"1 C measured by Brewer and Sullivan (2003) on Washington State yard waste compost. However, it fits well into the range reported by Garcia et al (1992) of 41.4 - 123 cmolc kg"1 dry matter for mature municipal waste compost. Nonetheless, the measured CEC of the City of Vancouver YTC suggests a 26 significant capacity for cation exchange in the YTC base pad, with Ca being the dominant exchangeable cation. The leaching losses of the major plant nutrients from the YTC and PL alone columns are listed in Table 2.7. These values are considered to be the maximum leaching losses which could occur in the field over the winter storage period in the outermost wet regions of the field storage piles. Potassium losses were notable from both the YTC and PL, due to the high mobility of this cation, which is not tightly bound by either material. Sodium was also highly leachable, especially from the PL. Extremely high amounts of N were leached from the PL, mainly in the NH4 form. This is a reflection of the high levels of organic-N present mainly as urea and proteins in PL (Kelleher et al 2001). The percentage of NH4 leached from the PL indicates that conversion of organic-N to NH4-N was occurring and thus the PL was microbially active. The lack of NO3 leaching indicates that NO3 was either taken up by microbes in the PL, or it underwent denitrification. The water saturated conditions in the columns would have been conducive to denitrification (Brady and Weil 2002). The PL experienced much higher losses of N, P and S (P < 0.05) than did the YTC. This was likely because the YTC had previously undergone composting during which these elements were converted into more stable and thus less available forms. 27 TABLE 2.7 Leaching losses of major nutrients from YTC and PL alone columns z n = 3 Nutrient Total leached % of initial Total leached 1 Jo of initial from YTC nutrient from PL nutrient (mg kg 1 dry YTC) leached from (mgkg- dry PL) leached from YTC PL NH4 730 ± 30a 59 ± 12 12 300 ± 2450b 250 ± 70 NO3 95 ± 40b 33 ±20 2.5 ± 0.9a 0.4 ±0.1 Total N 1430 ± 50a 7.2 ±2.1 16 430 ± 2940b 48 ± 16 Ortho-Py 120 ± 10a N/A 2460 ± 340b N/A Total P 160 ±4a 5.2 ±0.6 2810±250b 13 ±3 Total K 6850 ± 70a 58 ±9 13 050 ± 780b 78 + 11 Total Na 220 ± 4a 24 ±2 2620 ±160b 80 ± 10 Total Ca 750 ± 8b 4.1 ±0.3 640 ± 40a 1.8 ±0.3 Total Mg 330 ± 4b 12 ±2 150 ± 9a 3.1 ±0.6 Total S 150 ± 5a 6.3 ±0.8 2080 ±120b 43 ± 10 Total Cu 0.5±0.01a 1.0 ±0.1 40±2b 10 ±2 Total Zn 1.5±0.04a 0.8 ±0.1 19 ± lb 4.1 ±0.6 Total Fe 17±0.2a 0.2 ± 0.02 40±2b 3.4 ±0.5 Total Mn 3 ± 0.04a 1.1 ±0.04 20±2b 4.5 ±0.7 zMean separations performed using a t-test at a = 0.05. y Percent initial ortho-P leached calculation was not possible because ortho-P was not measured in the intial YTC and PL materials. Based on the initial Ca and Mg concentrations in the materials, the YTC leached 2.3 and 3.1 times more of its total Ca and Mg, than did the PL. This may be attributed to the high initial P concentration of the PL, which served to immobilize Ca and Mg. Leaching losses of the heavy metals Cu, Zn, and Mn were almost negligible from the YTC. This is consistent with the work of Grimes et al. (1999), who found that the maximum leachability of metals from household waste compost in distilled water, 1 M KC1, and acetic acid at pH 5 was 1%, 2% and 1% of the total for Cu, and 1% of the total for each treatment for Zn. Conversely, leaching losses of these heavy metals from the PL were significantly higher (P < 0.05) with 40 mg Cu kg"' dry PL (i.e. 10% of initial) and 19 mg Zn kg"1 dry PL (i.e. 4% of initial) being lost to leaching. This is a concern given that PL is high in these metals as a result of poultry feed supplementation (Leeson and Summers 2005). Leachate and run-off waters from field stored poultry litter that reach ditches and other waterways via overland or subsurface flow 28 can negatively impact aquatic life if they are high in N, P and/or heavy metals. (See Appendix C for all data). 2.2.3 Electrical Conductivity All treatments containing poultry litter had initially very high ECs (Figure 2.1). The YTC base pad in the PL/Y treatment served to decrease the EC of the first sample collected by 50% as compared to the PL alone, from 41 dS m"1 to 21 dS m1. However, the EC of the PITY treatment remained elevated for longer than the PL or Y/PL treatments. It appears that the YTC base pad serves to regulate the EC in the leachate by decreasing the initial very high dissolved salt levels and releasing them more slowly over time. It does not appear that the YTC base pad retains any significant portion of these salts. 45 Figure 2.1 Electrical conductivities of leachates. 2.2.4 Nitrogen Organic-N and NH4 leached readily from all poultry litter containing treatments until after approximately 275 mm of precipitation had occurred (Figure 2.2). Beyond this point there was very little N of any species in the leachate. The levels of NO3 and NO2 in the leachates were below the detection limits for all treatments, except for the last two sampling dates, at which time NO3 was detected in the YTC, PL/Y and S leachates, and NO2 was detected in the PL/Y and S leachates. The last two sampling events took place in the middle 29 of March and beginning of April. By this time the constant rains had tapered off and temperatures had increased. This led to the warming, drying, and re-oxygenation of the column materials, which allowed for nitrification to proceed. 55 Figure 2.2 Cumulative masses of (a) total N, (b) NH4, and (c) organic-N leached during column experiment. There were no differences observed in the cumulative amounts of NH4 leached from the treatments except the YTC alone. The two treatments with the YTC base pad (i.e. PL/Y 30 and S) leached NH4 in an approximately continuous manner over the entire period of study. Conversely, the two treatments lacking the YTC base pad (i.e. Y/PL and PL) leached initially very high concentrations of NH4 until approximately 275 mm of precipitation occurred, after which time the NH4 concentrations of the leachates decreased to almost zero. The Y/PL and S treatments lost the largest amounts of total N. It appears that the YTC cover increases the leaching of N from the PL layer below. This was confirmed upon examining the total N concentrations of the poultry litter materials after leaching as compared to the initial materials packed into the columns. The poultry litter in the PL alone column showed a decrease in total N of 10 g N kg"1 dry poultry litter after leaching, while the poultry litter layers in the two treatments with the YTC cover, namely Y/PL and S lost 14 and 17 g kg"1 of their initial total N, respectively (P < 0.05). As the poultry litter wetted and dried over the study a crust was observed on the surface. It was moderately impervious and likely limited gas exchange. It appears that the YTC cover protected the surface of the poultry litter layer below from forming this crust and thus helped to maintain aeration and consequently the microbial activity in the poultry litter layer, resulting in increased mineralization and leaching of N. In addition, significant quantities of Ca were leached from the YTC material. These Ca cations could have displaced NH4 ions on exchange sites in the poultry litter layer below, thus increasing N leaching. The forms of available N in the initial YTC material compared to each of the YTC layers after leaching are shown in Figure 2.3. The base pads in the S and PL/Y treatments contained elevated concentrations of both NH4-N and NO3-N as compared to the other leached layers. However, there were no overall losses or gains of total N in any of the YTC layers in any of the treatments as compared to the initial YTC, which had a total N 31 concentration of 22.2 ± 0.8 g kg"1. Therefore, the YTC base pad did not retain or immobilize any significant amount of N leached from the PL layer above. These elevated levels of NH4-N and NO3-N in the S and PITY base pads are leachate species which came from the poultry litter layers above and were not completely flushed out at the completion of the study. 1.6 ^ 1.4 01 01 1.2 1 o 0.8 z 0 0.6 z 1 0.4 X Z 0.2-I 0 rfi • NH4-N B N03-N r ' rtTrl—.—I ~ H~T~H Treatment Differences (a = 0.05) in total cumulative masses leached NH4-N NO3-N Initial c c YTC a a Y/PL cover a a PL/Y pad ab b S cover a a Spad be c Initial YTC only Y/PL cover PL/Y pad S cover S pad YTC layer Figure 2.3 Available NH4-N and N03-N in initial YTC material packed into columns and in YTC layers after leaching. Note: Y/PL cover indicates the YTC covering layer from the Y/PL treatment; S pad indicates the YTC pad from the S treatment. 2.2.5 Phosphorus The cumulative masses of total P, dissolved P, and ortho-P leached from the columns showed the same trends over time (Figure 2.4). Ortho-P and dissolved P were positively correlated (P < 0.01, R2 = 0.88). Total P and dissolved P were similarly correlated (P < 0.01, R = 0.97). This indicates that the majority of the total P leached out of the columns was in the inorganic form. The initial poultry litter packed into the columns had seven times more total P than the YTC (Table 2.2). Therefore, the majority of the P contained in the leachates originated in the poultry litter, for all treatments except the YTC alone. 32 7-1 6 YTC —X— PL A-— Y/PL - PL/Y • S 200 300 400 Precipitation (mm) (a) 300 400 Precipitation (mm) (b) Treatment Differences (a = 0.05) in total cumulative masses leached Total P Diss. P Ortho-P YTC a a a PL cd c c Y/PL d c c PL/Y be be be S b b b 200 300 400 500 Precipitation (mm) 600 700 (c) Figure 2.4 Cumulative masses of (a) total P, (b) dissolved P, and (c) ortho-P leached during column experiment. The PL alone and Y/PL columns leached P very quickly and at high concentrations, until approximately 350 mm of cumulative precipitation had occurred, at which time the concentrations dropped off. These two treatments exhibited no significant differences over the length of the experiment beyond the first sampling date. There is a clear inflection point 33 at 350 mm precipitation for all treatments (except the YTC alone) in the graphs of cumulative masses (Figure 2.4), which corresponds to the point on the graph of concentration (Figure 2.5) where the slopes of the two curves containing the YTC base pad (i.e. PL/Y and S) steepen while the slopes of the two curves lacking the YTC base pad (i.e. PL and Y/PL) flatten. This can be explained by the YTC base pad retaining P leached from the poultry litter layers above, until the accumulation of 350 mm of precipitation, at which time the P retention capacity of the YTC apparently became saturated and leachate P concentration increased. 500 400 4 O) 300 E o 1-100 YTC X PL —-A—- Y/PL PL/Y O S 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Precipitation (mm) Figure 2.5 Variations in concentration of total P in leachates over experiment. At the end of the experiment the PL alone treatment leached 1975 ± 1120 mg more total P than did the S treatment (P < 0.05). Additionally, the PL/Y column leached 2275 ± 500 mg less total P than the Y/PL column (P < 0.05), thus indicating that the YTC base pad was retaining P. Total P increased by an average of 1280 ± 660 mg P kg"1 dry YTC in the YTC base pad materials present in the PL/Y and S treatments as compared to the initial YTC total P concentration (P < 0.05) (Figure 2.6). Conversely, the YTC alone and YTC covering layers showed no significant changes in total P concentration over the leaching period. From the leachate data it has been calculated that the YTC base pad has the capacity to retain at 34 least 375 ± 339 mg P kg"1 dry YTC. The above suggests a significant capacity for P sorption by the YTC base pad. Treatment Differences (a = 0.05) in total cumulative masses leached Total P Available P Initial YTC only Y/PL cover PL/Y pad S cover YTC layer S pad Initial YTC Y/PL cover PL/Y pad S cover Spad Initial YTC only Y/PL cover PL/Y pad S cover S pad YTC layer (b) Figure 2.6 Comparison of (a) total P, and (b) available P in the initial YTC material packed into the columns and YTC layers after leaching. The possible mechanisms of P retention in the YTC base pad are cation bridging with organic matter, microbial uptake and immobilization (Reddy et al. 1999), and complexation with hydroxyoxides of Fe and aluminum (Al) at acidic pH, and Ca and Mg compounds at alkaline pH (Beauchemin et al. 2003; Moore and Miller 1994; Khalid et al. 1977). Cation bridging occurs when H2PO4" binds to a metal cation, often Ca, which itself is bound to humic or fulvic acids. As compost is biologically active there is the opportunity for microbial P uptake and immobilization of the P species present in the poultry litter leachate. However, high levels of precipitation, rapid leaching, and cold temperatures likely reduced the significance of this pathway. Due to the neutral to basic pH of the YTC and PL leachates, 35 complexation with Ca and Mg rather than Fe or Al was probably the dominant form of chemical immobilization of P in this system. 2.2.6 Calcium The two treatments with an YTC base pad (i.e. S and PL/Y) both leached significantly higher (P < 0.05) concentrations of Ca than the other three treatments throughout the leaching period (Figure 2.7). Upon subtracting the cumulative Ca leached from the YTC and PL alone treatments from the PL/Y treatment there was an extra 778 mg of Ca leached when the poultry litter was placed over top of the YTC. This was likely caused by cation exchange occurring in the YTC base pad stimulated by cations in the leachate flowing from the poultry litter layer above. Ammonium and K were likely the most dominant such cations, with Zn and Cu having a smaller impact. Grimes et al. (1999), in controlled batch sorption experiments using household waste compost, found that Ca was most likely being replaced by metals in both the organic and inorganic fractions of the compost. Additionally, the Ca leached from the Y/PL treatment did not prove to be simply the sum of the Ca leached from the YTC and PL treatments. In fact it was 1860 ± 160 mg Ca or 43% lower than expected. One possible explanation for this could be the very high concentration of P contained in the poultry litter. Calcium forms insoluble precipitates with P under alkaline conditions. Thus, as Ca leached out of the YTC covering layer it was immobilized through reaction with P in the poultry litter layer below. The Ca concentration in the PL under the YTC in the Y/PL treatment at the end of the study was significantly higher than the Ca concentration in the initial PL packed into the columns (P < 0.1). Furthermore, the ratio of total to available Ca in the poultry litter prior to leaching was 33, while this same ratio for the YTC was about three. 36 100 200 300 400 Precipitation (mm) 500 Treatment Differences (a = 0.05) in total cumulative masses leached Ca YTC b PL a Y/PL b PL/Y c S c Figure 2.7 Cumulative masses of Ca leached from columns. 2.2.7 Copper and Zinc After the first major rainfall event, the concentrations of Cu and Zn in the leachates emanating from the PL and Y/PL treatments were 25 and 17 mg Cu L'1, and 11 and 7 mg Zn L"1, respectively. In comparison, the BC Ministry of Environment drinking water quality standards are 0.5 mg Cu L"1 and 5 mg Zn L"1 (Refer to Table 1.1) (Government of British Columbia 2006). These high leachate concentrations are a reflection of the high concentrations of these two metals in the initial poultry litter packed into the columns (Table 2.3). The YTC base pad was very effective at retaining both Cu and Zn throughout the entire leaching period. The extreme Cu and Zn concentrations in the first flush of leachate from the PL alone treatment were reduced from 25 to 1.3 mg Cu L"1 and from 11 to 0.95 mg Zn L_1 (P < 0.05), equal to over 90% for both metals when the YTC base pad was present in the PL/Y treatment (Figure 2.8). 37 YTC —X— PL Y/PL —©— PL7Y —a— S 200 300 400 Precipitation (mm) (a) 100 200 300 400 Precipitation (mm) 500 600 (b) Figure 2.8 Variations in concentrations of (a) Cu and (b) Zn in leachates over study period. The cumulative masses of Cu and Zn leached from the PL alone column were reduced by 46 ± 6 mg Cu and 24 ± 3 mg Zn (P < 0.05) when the YTC base pad was present in the PL/Y treatment (Figure 2.9). The total Cu concentrations of the YTC base pads in the S and PL/Y treatments had increased by an average of 53 ± 10 mg Cu (P < 0.05), equal to 102% over the initial Cu concentration in the YTC material packed into the columns. No significant increases in Zn concentration were observed in the YTC base pad material. This was possibly because the initial concentration of Zn in the YTC was high (470 mg Zn kg"1 dry YTC) and thus the added 20-30 mg of Zn to the YTC material was not detectable within error. 38 200 300 400 Precipitation (mm) 600 (a) Treatment Differences (a = 0.05) in total cumulative masses leached Cu Zn YTC a a PL c c Y/PL d d PL/Y b b S b b 200 300 400 Precipitation (mm) (b) Figure 2.9 Cumulative masses of (a) Cu and (b) Zn leached from columns. The YTC cover in the Y/PL treatment increased the Cu and Zn leaching from the poultry litter below by 13 ± 6 mg Cu orl2% and by 11 ± 3 mg Zn or 20% (P < 0.05) over the PL alone treatment. Two possible explanations for this exist. First, Ca in the leachate from the YTC covering layer could have displaced Cu and Zn from the exchange sites in the poultry litter. Second, dissolved organic matter in the leachate emanating from the YTC layer above could have been chelating the metals in the poultry litter layer below, thus increasing their solubility. Lindsay (1979) found that for a variety of organic molecules Zn-ligand chelates were more soluble than Cu-ligand chelates. Therefore the relative increase in Zn leached from the poultry litter layer due to the YTC cover was greater than the increase in Cu. The S treatment, which also had an YTC cover, did not show an increase in cumulative 39 masses of Zn or Cu leached as compared to the PL/Y treatment. This could be due to the YTC base pad in the S treatment retaining the extra metals leached from the poultry litter layer above. Three mechanisms for the retention of Cu and Zn by the YTC base pad are cation exchange, sorption, and precipitation. The elevated pH of the poultry litter leachate (approximately 8.0) would have served to increase the negative charge on the YTC, thus increasing the sorption capacity. These elevated pHs would have also led to the precipitation of Cu and Zn, as these metals are most soluble below pH 7.0 (Brady and Weil 2002). At the end of the study the overall cumulative masses of Cu and Zn leached from the columns were both negatively correlated with the cumulative mass of Ca leached (P < 0.1). This negative relationship was even stronger when Cu or Zn was correlated with the cumulative mass of Ca plus Mg (P < 0.05). This suggests that Ca and Mg were being displaced from the exchange sites on the humic substances in the YTC base pad by Cu and Zn ions. The overall effect of sorption, cation exchange, and precipitation in the YTC base pad resulted in 12 ± 3 mg of Cu and 6 ± 2 mg of Zn being retained per kg of dry YTC material. 2.3 Conclusions Nitrogen, Na, K, S, and P leached readily from the poultry litter. The YTC was more stable in terms of leachable nutrients however notable quantities of K, Na, Mg, N, and S were lost due to leaching. The YTC base pad in the PL/Y treatment decreased the cumulative Cu, Zn and P leached as compared to the PL alone by 46 ± 6 mg Cu, 24 ± 3 mg Zn, and 1975 ± 1120 mg P (P < 0.05), but appeared to have little ability to retain N or soluble salts. Furthermore, the YTC base pad materials in the PL/Y and S treatments contained on average an extra 1280 ± 660 mg P kg 1 dry YTC than the initial YTC prior to leaching (P < 0.05). 40 Cation exchange, mainly via Ca displacement was credited for much of the metal retention, while complexation with Ca and Mg was credited with much of the retention of P. An important scientific finding was that the YTC cover served to increase the leaching of metals and N from the poultry litter layers below. 41 3. Use of yard trimmings compost to mitigate effects of over-winter field storage of poultry litter on soil quality The objective of this study was to determine the effects of the YTC base pad, YTC covering, and combinations of the two on selected soil properties under and around three poultry litter field storage piles. Additionally, observational data was collected to assess the overall effects of the piles on run-off quality, and crop development. 3.1 Materials and Methods 3.1.1 Site and pile descriptions Three experimental poultry litter storage piles were located at two farms near Ladner, BC. The soils are medium to moderately fine textured deltaic deposits of the Gleysolic order. The fields are flat, poorly drained, and there is a fluctuating water table. Piles 1 and 2 were located on a Guichon soil while Pile 3 was located on a Delta soil (Luttmerding 1980). The exact locations and characteristics of the piles are listed in Table 3.1. TABLE 3.1 Descriptions of experimental poultry litter field storage piles Pile Location Height Width Length Mass YTC YTC # (m) (tonnes) base pad cover 1 49° 02' 39.1 N 4.5-5 10 70 450 Yes 2/3 123° 03' 17.8 W covered 2 49° 02' 56.1 N 3-3.5 10 40 600z No 1/3 123° 03' 14.4W covered 3 49° 04' 34.5 N 3 7 20 100 No Full 123° 02' 50.5 W cover Estimated by assuming a 60% reduction in volume after composting a combined mass of poultry litter and horse manure of 1480 tonnes (60:40 mix poultry litter: horse manure). All piles were formed into windrows for the storage period. A windrow is a long pile of triangular cross-sectional area. This shape allows precipitation to be shed, thus preventing pooling, and the creation of saturated, anoxic zones which give off unpleasant odors. 42 The experimental Piles 1 and 2 were located at opposite ends of the same field on 64th Street, near Ladner, and were located approximately 50 m and 100 m, respectively from the nearest ditch. Pile 1 had a mass of 450 tonnes and was a mixture of broiler litter and turkey litter. The entire windrow was stored on a 30 cm thick base pad of YTC (dry bulk density, DD = 711 kg/m ). The manure was covered at both ends by a 15-20 cm thick layer of YTC (Db = 290 kg/m ), while a 30 m long section of the middle was left uncovered. The result was that there were two treatments at Pile 1: 1) Uncovered with a base pad (i.e. 1U) and 2) Covered with a base pad (i.e. IC). Pile 2 was made up of a composted mixture of 60% poultry litter and 40% barnyard horse manure (volume basis), with a total final mass of 600 tonnes. This mixture was actively composted off site, with four turns to ensure that the entire pile reached temperatures of 55 -60°C. The middle portion of this windrow (18 m long) had a 15-30 cm thick YTC cover while the two end sections had no cover. This pile had no YTC base pad and was thus stored directly on the soil. The two treatments at this pile were: 1) Uncovered with no base pad (i.e. 2U), and 2) Covered with no base pad (i.e. 2C). Pile 3 was located further north on 64th Street on a different field. This pile was made up of approximately 100 tonnes of straight poultry litter, had no YTC base pad, was completely covered with a 15-20 cm thick layer of YTC, and was located about 35 m from the nearest ditch. The treatment at this pile was; Covered with no base pad. 3.1.2 Soil sampling and analysis Soil sampling was carried out in the fall to determine background levels of nutrients at all four sites. Ten soil samples were collected at two depths (0-15 cm and 15-30 cm) from each site at 5 m intervals along a transect 5 m away from the pile and parallel to it. The ten 43 samples from each depth were composited for each particular site, and analyzed by the methods described below for electrical conductivity (EC), pH, and the following available nutrients: NH4-N, N03-N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Na, Cu, Zn, Fe, Mn, and SO4-S. In the spring, when the fields had dried and prior to spreading of the manure, soil samples were collected at two depths from the regions around and under the piles. Soil samples were collected from three locations around the pile, namely 0 m or directly beside the pile, 2.5 m, and 5 m away from the pile. Three replicates of these samples were collected for each treatment at each pile. The soil under the piles was sampled in two or three regions depending on the presence or absence of the YTC base pad. Samples were collected from under the wet outer edges and dry inner cores of all three piles. Samples were also collected from under the wet middle region (i.e. wet mid) of Pile 1. Each sample site was replicated three times for each treatment. Soil samples were also collected at the end of July 2006 under where Piles 1 and 2 had been, as well as from the bulk field around these piles. Soil samples were collected from areas formerly under the uncovered and covered sections of Pile 1 where the wet edge and dry core had been. Also, a composite of ten samples from the bulk field surrounding Pile 1 was collected. For Pile 2 composites of ten samples were collected from both under the former pile location and from the field surrounding it. These samples were analyzed only for pH, EC, and available NH4-N and NO3-N. All soil samples were collected using an Oakfield Probe at 0-15 cm and 15-30 cm depths. Five cores were collected at each site and composited. Upon collection the samples were transferred to plastic bags, sealed and stored on ice packs in a cooler for transport to the laboratory. The NH4-N and NO3-N were extracted within 24 hours with a 1M KC1 extraction 44 solution using a 10:1 KC1: soil extract as described by McKeague (1978). Extracts were analyzed using a Lachat QuikChem FIA, 8000 series. The remainder of the sample was air dried at room temperature, and ground using a hammer mill with a 2 mm sieve. EC and pH were determined using a 2:1 water to soil extract, on a mass basis. A Beckman Solu-Bridge conductivity meter was used to analyze the EC, while an Orion Research analogue pH meter model 300 was used for determination of pH. The EC results were converted to saturation paste values using the following relationship determined on a Westham Island soil by Wolterson(1993): y = 2.61x + 0.030 R2 = 0.97 Eq. (8) For the remainder of the chemical analyses samples were sent to Pacific Soil Analysis Inc (PSAI) in Richmond, BC. Available P (Bray-P|) was determined colorimetrically using the ascorbic acid color development method on a 1:10 soil to Bray (0.03N NH4F in 0.025N HCI) extract (McKeague 1978). Available Ca, Mg, Na, and K were determined on a Perkin-Elmer Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (AAS) using a 1:5 soil to 1M ammonium acetate extract buffered to pH 7.0 (McKeague 1978). Available Cu, Zn, Fe, and Mn were determined by Perkin-Elmer AAS on a 1:5 soil to 0.1N HCI extract (McKeague 1978). Available SO4-S was determined using the Hi-Bismuth Reducible method on a 1:2 soil to CaCl2 extract (Kowalenko 1993). 3.1.3 Poultry litter and yard trimmings compost sampling and analysis Temperature measurements within each pile were taken several times throughout the storage period, as an indicator of composting and pathogen reduction. These measurements were taken along a horizontal transect at 1.5 m above the soil surface, at five depths within the pile: 20, 40, 60, 100, and 140 cm from the poultry litter surface. 45 Samples of the poultry litter and YTC from each pile were collected in the fall as a reference for initial nutrient, moisture, and salt contents. These samples were air dried at room temperature for a minimum of 120 h and then stored in sealed plastic bags until analysis. In early April 2006, samples of the poultry litter and YTC materials were collected from several locations within each pile. First, an excavator was used to make two large cuts in each treatment at each pile (Refer to Appendix D). The cuts were approximately 2 m wide and they extended from the apex of the pile, straight down to the soil surface and out to one edge. This resulted in complete profiles on four walls from which to collect three replicate samples. The YTC cover was sampled at the apex, the middle and bottom, and the base pad was sampled at the wet outer edge, wet middle region, and dry core. The poultry litter was sampled from the dry inner core, as well as from the wet outer layer at the bottom, middle, and top of the pile. Approximately 10 L of sample from each location were scraped into a pail and thoroughly mixed with a trowel. Samples of 0.5-1 kg were transferred to plastic bags and transported to the laboratory. Samples were laid out to air-dry at room temperature for a minimum of 120 h. Moisture content, EC, and pH were determined on all samples as described in Chapter 2 (p. 20-21). The YTC and PL materials sampled from each of the regions in Pile 1 only were subjected to a detailed chemical analysis by PSAI. This included ash, available NH4-N, N03-N, and Bray-Pi, as well as total C, N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Na, Cu, Zn, Fe, Mn, and S. The methods are the same as those described in Chapter 2 (p. 23-24). 46 3.1.4 Statistical analysis Due to the challenges of on-farm research there was no true replication in this study. Samples were collected from three locations within each treatment at each pile as pseudo-replicates. For each individual pile the pseudo-replicates were subjected to a one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) using SAS Institute Inc. "JMPIN" statistical package, version 4.0.4 (SAS, 2001). Upon a significant F-value for treatment, mean comparisons were performed using Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference at an alpha level of 0.05. Qualitative comparisons only were made between piles. 3.2 Results and Discussion 3.2.1 Climate The monthly precipitation received at the Vancouver International Airport located approximately 14 km northwest of the study sites is compared to the monthly climate normals calculated from 1971 to 2000 in Figure 3.1 (Environment Canada 2004). The elevation and weather patterns at the airport are comparable to those of the study sites. This figure indicates that January 2006 was an unusually wet month while February was a very dry month. The result of this was that the agricultural fields in Delta in January were completely saturated, there was standing water covering much of the fields, and there was considerable overland flow. 47 300 • 2005/06 250 j Q 1971-2000 E E 200 -Q. $ 100 \ % 15° I Q. C O 50 4 04 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Month Figure 3.1 Monthly precipitation at Vancouver International Airport 2005-2006 compared to Environment Canada normals. 3.2.2.1 Winter The effects of the YTC covering and base pad on manure storage Piles 1 and 2 were evident in January 2006. There was standing and flowing water surrounding both piles due to the intense levels of precipitation, water table rise, and resulting soil saturation. Directly beside Pile 1 the puddles were a transparent dark brown color. Around Pile 2 (i.e. no YTC base pad) the puddles were opaque and had a black tarry appearance. It was possible to observe this leachate and run-off flowing directly from Pile 2, across the field and into the ditch, despite the fact that this pile was located approximately 100 m away, well in accordance with the Government of British Columbia's Agricultural Waste Control Regulation (Government of British Columbia 1992). When comparing Piles 1 and 2 it appeared that the YTC base pad under Pile 1 helped to regulate the water running-off of and leaching through the PL layers above, acting like a sponge and resulting in less overall water accumulation around the pile. The leachate which did accumulate around Pile 1 was cleaner and clearer looking than the leachate pooling around Pile 2. 3.2.2 Field Observations 48 Around Pile 2 there were two black, tarry puddles directly beside the two uncovered portions of the pile. This suggested that the YTC covering layer was reducing the leaching and run-off from the wet outer layer of the stored PL. This was not observed around Pile 1 likely because the YTC base pad decreased the effect. Despite the lack of YTC base pad under Pile 3, the standing water around this pile was a light brown colour comparable to what was observed around Pile 1. This suggests that the YTC cover was inhibiting the leaching and run-off from the outer layers of the PL. Pile 3 seemed to be located in a slight depression, as there was a considerable amount of water pooling around it, but little flowing overland. The temperatures measured in the piles over the winter indicate that the YTC cover insulates the poultry litter and helps to maintain elevated temperatures (Figure 3.2). Pile 2, which was composted off-site, remained the warmest over the storage period in both the covered and uncovered sections indicating that composting was continuing. The uncovered section of Pile 1 cooled off quickly and remained cool. Pile 3 and the covered section of Pile 1 remained relatively warm indicating that microbial activity was occurring, which could have led to increased rates of mineralization of nutrients resulting in higher levels of leachable nutrients, as well as possible pathogen reduction. 49 31-Aug 20-Oct 9-Dec 28-Jan 19-Mar Sample Date Figure 3.2 Average temperatures measured in piles over the winter storage period. Temperatures are averages of measurements taken at 5 depths within each pile. 3.2.2.2 Summer Impacts of the manure storage piles on crops were evident in August 2006. The effects of each pile on the subsequent crop at that site are described in Table 3.2. Generally, the negative impacts on crop development are likely attributable to a combination of ammonia toxicity and excessive salinity on seed germination. The symptoms observed on the crops growing under where Pile 2 had been stored, are characteristic of plants growing under excessively high N conditions. These include vigorous dark green vegetative growth, coupled with delayed or absent flowering, fruit set and fruit development (Mills and Jones, 1979). Total available soil N levels measured where Pile 2 had been in August 2006 were approximately 1200 mg kg"1. 50 TABLE 3.2 Field observations of the effects on crop development the summer following over-winter storage of poultry litter Pile - Treatment Crop Observations 1 Covered, YTC Corn pad 1 Uncovered, YTC Corn pad 2 Covered, no pad Potatoes 2 Uncovered, no pad Potatoes 3 Covered, no pad Peas Approximately half the plants appeared unaffected, half were stunted and showed purpling and curling of the leaves; effects visible under the pile only. Plants growing beside the pile were healthy. Large area of no crop (20 m x 5 m), strip of healthy plants down centre (under core of pile), stunted plants mixed with no plants extended out to 3 m away from pile. Complete plant cover, foliage dark green, no tubers; effects covered area under the pile and out to approximately 1 m away. Complete plant cover, foliage dark green, no tubers; effects covered area under the pile and out to approximately 1 m away. No crop production under pile or around pile to a distance of approximately 1 m away in all directions. 3.2.3 Soil Quality Under and Around Piles 3.2.3.1 All Piles Positive correlations (P < 0.01) existed under all piles at the 0-15 cm depth between EC and pH, pH and NH4-N, and NH4-N and EC. This indicates that leached NFLf1" was controlling the soil pH under the pile, and that the majority of the leached salts were NH4-salts. These same positive correlations existed under the piles at the 15-30 cm depth however they were not as strong (P < 0.1). (See Appendix E for raw data). Electrical conductivity, pH and NH4-N were not correlated for the soil samples taken at 2.5 m and 5 m away from the piles suggesting that the stored manure had little effect on the surrounding field. However, the soil directly beside the piles (i.e. 0 m) exhibited positive correlations (P < 0.05) between EC and NH4-N, as well as between pH and NH4-N. There 51 was no correlation between EC and pH. Thus, directly beside the piles run-off of NH4-N was driving the soil pH, however leaching of salts was not a significant factor. There was a negative correlation (P < 0.05) between available P and EC for the soils under and around Pile 1. This was likely an indication that the YTC base pad was retaining P, while the salts were leaching through. The soils below Pile 3 showed a positive correlation (P < 0.01) between available P and EC. This substantiates the fact that the YTC base pad in Pile 1 was retaining P, whereas Pile 3 lacked an YTC base pad and thus impacted both soil available P and EC levels. The soils under Pile 2 showed no correlation between EC and available P despite the lack of YTC base pad. This was likely due to the dilution of the poultry litter with barnyard horse manure and pre-composting of Pile 2 offsite, which resulted in less available P for leaching (Table 3.3). TABLE 3.3 Initial fall nutrient concentrations of the stored poultry litter, n = 4 Initial concentration of Piles 1 and 3 Pile 2 - poultry litter nutrient - dry weight basis - poultry litter2 composted with horse manure EC 10±la 13±0.4b pH 6.2 ± 0.2a 6.4±0.1a %C 39 ± 0.7b 33 ±2a %Ash 15±0.7a 27±4b Total N (g kg"1) . 51±2b 37±3a Total P (g kg"1) 22 ± 0.6a 22±5a Total K(g kg1) 16±la 16 ±2a Total Ca (g kg"1) 24 ± 0.9a 42 ± lb Available N (mg kg"1) 5160±620a 5310±510a Available P (mg kg"1) 5850 ± 520b 4630 ±130a Available K (mg kg"1) 12 380 ± 600a 13 940 ± 2200a Available Ca (mg kg"1) 531±120a 531 ±290a Available Na (mg kg"1) 3420 ± 250b 2640 ± 240a Available Cu (mg kg"') 65 ± 20b 17 ± 13a Available Zn (mg kg"1) 380 ±13b 250 ± 35a zPiles 1 and 3 were made up of the same type of poultry litter. 52 3.2.3.2 Pile 1 Pile 1 (i.e. full YTC base pad; partial YTC cover) increased soluble salt levels at the 0-15 cm depth only under the pile's two wet regions, namely the wet middle and wet edge as compared to the background EC of 2 dS m"1 measured in the fall 2005 (Figure 3.3a). However, the only significantly high EC (P < 0.05) was measured under the YTC covered section of the wet middle region, suggesting that the YTC cover increased leaching from the stored poultry litter. Soluble salts under the dry core, as well as at 0 m, 2.5 m and 5 m away from the pile were all below the background level. There was no significant effect at 15-30 cm depth. 12 10 — 8 S 6 o UJ 4 2 0 • Covered • Uncovered rh P*U Dry core Wet mid Wet edge Sample 0m location 2.5m 5m (a) 2400 « 1800 O) O) .§, 1200 600 • Covered • Uncovered Dry core Wet mid Wet edge Sample 0m Location 2.5m 5m (b) Sample Location Differences at a = 0.05 EC NH4-N P Cz Dry core a ab ab U" Dry core a ab a C Wet mid b c ab U Wet mid a be ab C Wet edge a ab abed U Wet edge a ab be COm a ab abed UOm a a d C2.5 m a a d U2.5 m a a bed C5 m a a cd U5 m a a abed ZYTC covered section; "Uncovered section 53 250 -T— 200 -I 150 • Q. 0 S 100 • ra '5 < 50 • o • Covered • Uncovered l i i nil | ! i I •- i i nh-| I I •-Dry core Wet mid Wet edge 0m 2.5m 5m Sample Location Figure 3.3 Effect of Pile 1 on soil (a) EC, (b) NH4-N, and (c) available P at 0-15 cm depth, sampled April 2006. The highest soil NH4-N concentrations were detected in the wet middle region followed by the wet edge (Figure 3.3b). However, elevated soil NH4-N levels were also detected at the 0-15 cm depth under the covered and uncovered sections of the dry core, directly beside the covered section of the pile (i.e. 0 m), and 2.5 m away from the uncovered section of the pile. A similar pattern was observed at the 15-30 cm depth with reduced concentrations. The 0-15 cm depth samples taken from the covered wet middle region apparently exhibited the highest NH4-N, possibly indicating that the YTC cover increases leaching from the poultry litter although this was not significantly higher than the uncovered wet middle and wet edge samples. Soil NH4-N levels detected at 2.5 m away from the uncovered section were apparently higher than those 2.5 m away from the covered section of the pile, although these differences were not significant. Nonetheless this data suggests that the YTC cover increases leaching and decreases run-off. As poultry litter wets and dries a crust forms on the surface, which limits the infiltration of precipitation. This was observed in the uncovered poultry litter sections of both Piles 1 and 2. The YTC layer appears to protect the poultry litter surface from forming this crust, and thus allows improved infiltration of precipitation and consequently more leaching and less run-off. 54 The elevated NH4-N levels under the dry core of Pile 1 are a reflection of the fluctuating water table and soil saturation which commonly occur over-winter in this region. Once there was water under the pile it would have moved up into the YTC base pad through capillary rise, allowing for leaching or lateral diffusion to occur. It is unlikely that this water could have risen up as high as the PL, as the YTC base pad was 30 cm thick. Also, upon sampling in the spring the upper portion of the YTC base pad and overlying poultry litter in this region were both very dry. Therefore, the elevated NH4-N detected under the dry cores is hypothesized to have originated in the YTC base pad itself. Soil available P concentrations under the dry core and wet middle regions of Pile 1 were unaffected by the overlying PL (Figure 3.3c). Background levels of soil available P measured in the fall of 2005 were 129 mg kg"1 at 0-15 cm depth and 71 mg kg"1 at 15-30 cm depth. This suggests that the YTC base pad under the wet middle region was effective at retaining P leached from the poultry litter above. Some P leaching apparently occurred under the covered wet edge, though this was not significantly higher than any other sample location. Little leaching was expected under the wet edge because this region of the pile mostly consisted of the YTC base pad and cover, with only a small amount of poultry litter, and the maximum leachability of P from the YTC over the entire study period was found through the column study to be only 160 ± 4 mg P kg"1 dry YTC. The high available P levels detected in the soil under the covered wet edge might be attributable to field variability. All soil available P concentrations determined on the 0-15 cm depth samples from this site were in the very high risk of P pollution potential as proposed by in the Fraser Valley Soil Nutrient Study 2005 (Kowalenko et al. 2007). 55 Phosphorus run-off from the covered section of Pile 1 had an effect out to 5 m away from the pile at the 0-15 cm depth, but no significant effect at 15-30 cm. The effect of P run off from the uncovered section extended out to 2.5 m away from the pile at both the 0-15 cm and 15-30 cm depths. The concentrations of other soil available macro and micro nutrients as well as the pH at the 0-15 cm soil depth under and around Pile 1 after over-winter storage are listed in Table 3.4. Available K and Na concentrations correlated positively with EC (P < 0.01) indicating that these species are the dominant salt forming cations present in the PL, they are highly soluble, and loosely sorbed to the poultry litter. Sodium concentrations under the covered wet middle region were significantly higher (P < 0.05) than all other Na levels, indicating that the YTC cover increased Na leaching from the poultry litter below. 56 TABLE 3.4 Soil pH and concentrations of available nutrients under and around Pile 1 at the end of the storage period, n = 3 Sample PH Ca Mgz K Na Cu Znz Fe Mn S04-S Location (mg kgdry weight basis C Dry Core 5.9±0.1d 1350±50bc 483 ±3 1040±96bc 62 ± 3ab 6.8±lbc 12 ±2 533±29abcd 48±4e 26±7bcd U Dry Core 5.2±0.1c 1150±0ab 393 ± 23 1030±76bc 82 ± 8abc 8.9±0.2C 12 ±3 673±21cd 37±le 30±6bcd C Wet mid 7.1 ±0.5d 1280±225bc 410±132 1810±1120bc 360 ± 20d 4.1±lbc 14 ±3 717±58d 48±3e 55±3cd U Wet mid 6.4 ± 0.4d 1120±29ab 355 ± 13 1920±987c 188±127bc 6.8±0.9ab 15 ±3 660±26cd 39±2e 35±29bcd C Wet edge 6.3±0.8d 1300±132bc 413 ±48 960±476bc 198±78c 7.3±3bc 13 ± 1 443±179abcd 41±le 49±20cd U Wet edge 6.3 ± 0.5d 1130±126ab 368 ± 74 1530±306bc 132 ± 38abc 5.6±0.4bc 14 ±4 492 ±74abcd 36±2abcd 29±17bcd COm 5.3 ± 0.4C 1320±29bc 403 ± 25 645±196bc 58 ± 3ab 4.9±2bc 12 ±3 402 ±178bc 33±8abcd 29±9bcd UOm 4.6±0.1abc 1270±104bc 348 ± 39 633±57ab 28±3a 4.3±0.8bc 17 ±2 328 ± 25ab 30±4abc ll±3bc C2.5m 5.6 ± 1.2d 1550±260c 392 ±7 687±42bc 35±5a 3.9±2ab 16 ± 1 222 ±84ab 33±3abcd 7±2ab U2.5m 5.3±0.3C 1330±29bc 428 ±8 849±306bc 57 ± 13ab 6±2bc 16 ±3 428 ±149bc 44±3de 30±12bcd C5m 4.8 0.1abc 1250±173bc 357 ± 60 623±40ab 35±9a 5.9±2bc 14 ±2 312 ±39ab 28±4ab 22±7bcd U 5 m 4.9±0.2bc 1220 ± 29bc 365 ± 20 903±194bc 65 ± 9ab 4.6±2bc 15 ±4 350 ±83ab 27±7a 30±17bcd zF-test not significant at a = 0.05 Ul Available Ca concentrations away from the pile were generally higher than those detected under the pile. This is most likely due to Ca run-off from the YTC cover and base pad materials. No significant effects on soil Mg or Zn were detected. The only elevated Cu concentrations were detected under one core sample where leaching was due to water table rise contacting the YTC base pad. Through the column study the leachability of Cu from YTC was determined to be 0.5 ± 0.01 mg Cu kg1 dry YTC, thus it is unlikely that the YTC base pad would have significantly impacted soil available Cu levels, and this anomalous concentration is probably due to field variability. Iron and Mn showed elevated concentrations similarly under the highly leached covered and. uncovered wet middle regions of the pile as well as under some of the dry core samples. The YTC base pad does not appear to retain either of these metals. 3.2.3.3 Pile 2 Pile 2 (i.e. no YTC base pad; partial YTC cover) caused elevated soluble salt and NH4-N levels in the soil under the wet edge and dry core down to 30 cm depth (Figure 3.4). The elevated soil EC and NH4-N concentrations under the dry core of the pile suggest that during the winter storage season the water table rose up to the soil surface and drew down salts and nutrients from the manure pile above. Both EC and NH4-N concentrations directly beside the uncovered section of the pile were higher than beside the YTC covered section, though these differences were not significant. This nonetheless suggests that the YTC cover prevents run-off thus limiting the effect of the stored manure on the surrounding field. 58 7 -, 6 -5 -4 -(/) 2, 3 -o LU 2 -1 -0 -ill MS • Covered • Uncovered Dry core Wet edge Om 2.5m Sample Location 5m 2700 1800 O) E 900 I Tl • Covered • Uncovered Dry core Wet edge 0m 2.5m Sample Location 5m 210 -, 180 -150 -O) E, 120 -a a> 90 -n ra '5 60 -> < 30 -0 -i ii • Covered • Uncovered Dry core Wet edge 0m 2.5m Sample Location 5m (a) (b) (c) Sample Location Differences at a = 0.05 EC NH4-N P C Dry core be abc a U Dry core be be ab C Wet edge c c a U Wet edge c c be COm a a ab UOm ab ab c C 2.5 m a a ab U2.5 m a a ab C5 m a a ab U5 m a a ab Figure 3.4 Effect of Pile 2 on soil (a) EC, (b) NH4-N, and (c) available P at 0-15 cm depth, sampled April 2006. Pile 2 had little effect on soil available P levels at the 0-15 cm depth, and no measurable effect at 15-30 cm. At 0 m away from the uncovered section of the pile the available P concentrations were the highest reaching up to almost 200 mg kg"1, whereas the soil at 0 m away from the YTC covered section had significantly lower soil available P levels of only 121 mg kg"1 (P < 0.05), equal to the background levels measured the previous fall. 59 This further substantiates the fact that the YTC cover prevents run-off from the stored poultry litter. The only other elevated available soil P levels measured near Pile 2 were under the uncovered wet edge. A possible explanation why there was more P leaching from the uncovered poultry litter than there was from the YTC covered poultry litter (P < 0.05), is that the YTC is relatively high in Ca. Calcium leached at a rate of 750 ±11 mg Ca kg-1 dry YTC in the column experiment conducted over the same winter. As Ca leached out of Pile 2's YTC covering layer it could have reacted with some of the P present in the poultry litter, immobilizing it and thus reducing the leachability of the P. 3.2.3.4 Pile 3 Pile 3 (i.e. no YTC base pad; complete YTC cover) had a severe effect on soluble salt and NFL-.-N levels under the entire pile down to 30 cm depth (Figure 3.5). This pile was much smaller than Piles 1 and 2, thus leaching which occurred under the core of the pile might have come from lateral movement of water under the pile as well as through water table rise. There was no effect on soil EC around the pile however NH4-N concentrations were apparently elevated out to 2.5 m away at both 0-15 cm and 15-30 cm depths. This NH4-N run-off likely originated mostly in the YTC cover itself. 60 27 i 24 -21 -18 -'E 15 -(A 2, 12 -o UJ 9 -a 0 • 3 -0 -• 0-15cm • 15-30cm I Dry core Wet edge Om 2.5m Sample Location 5m 6000 5000 -I vai 4000 •1 3000 z £ 2000 z 1000 0 • 0-15 cm • 15-30 cm 1 Dry core Wet edge 0m 2.5m Sample Location 5m 800 O) E, O- 400 .o <8 P 0 0-15cm • 15-30cm Dry core Wet edge Om 2.5m Sample Location 5m (a) (b) (c) Sample Location Differences at a = 0.05 0-15 cm EC NH4-N P Dry core ab b a Wet edge b b a 0m a a a 2.5 m a a a 5 m a a a Sample Location Differences at a = 0.05 15-30 cm EC NH4-N P Dry core ab a a Wet edge b b a 0m a a a 2.5 m a a a 5 m a a a Figure 3.5 Effect of Pile 3 on soil (a) EC, (b) NH4-N, and (c) available P, sampled April 2006. The 0-15 cm soil depth under the wet edge apparently experienced the most P leaching however there were no significant differences between sample locations. Available P levels for all samples at the 0-15 cm depth appeared to be above the background level of 181 mg kg"1, and all values exceeded the 100 mg P kg"1 (Kelowna extractable P) limit 61 proposed by the Fraser Valley Soil Nutrient Survey 2005 putting these soils in the very high environmental risk class for P pollution (Kowalenko et al. 2007). The concentrations of other soil available macro and micro nutrients as well as the pH at the 0-15 cm soil depth under and around Pile 3 after over-winter storage are listed in Table 3.5. Similar to Pile 1 EC was positively correlated with K and Na (P < 0.05) indicating that these are the dominant salt forming cations in the poultry litter. Available Ca concentrations under the core and edge of Pile 3 were significantly lower (P < 0.05) than at 5 m away. This could be the result of high levels of P leaching out of the stored poultry litter and forming insoluble precipitates with Ca thus reducing its availability under the pile. Also Ca run-off from the YTC cover could have increased the concentrations at 5 m away. Concentrations of Cu, Fe and SO4-S were all significantly higher (P < 0.05) under the wet edge of the pile than at 5 m away, indicating that these species leached out of the poultry litter but did not run-off and re-enforcing the notion that the YTC cover protects the surrounding field from poultry litter run-off. Zinc concentrations under the wet edge were high but due to large variability no significant differences were observed. Soil available Mn and Mg levels were apparently unaffected by the stored poultry litter. 62 TABLE 3.5 Soil pH and concentrations of available nutrients under and around Pile 3 at the end of the storage period, n = 3 Sample PH Ca Mgz K Na Cu Znz Fe Mnz SO4-S Location (mg kg"') Dry Core 6.9±0.1d 1200 ± 220a 303 ± 78 2470 ± 1240ab 510 ±215" 5.3±0.9b 9.7 ± 1 740 ± 32b 37 ±2 55 ± 21ab Wet edge 6.1 ±0.1c 1130±210a 375 ± 18 3020 ± 930b 520±160b 4.9±0.7ab 13 ±5 700 ± 23b 33 ±5 120 ± 54b Om 5.2±0.2b NDy ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2.5 m 4.8±0.2b ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 5 m 4.4±0.1a 1900 ± 130b 440 ± 42 303 ±13a 62 ± 13a 3.5±0.1a 8 ±0.6 180 ±15a 32 ±0.6 20 ± lla zF-test not significant at a = 0.05. yND - no data available. ON 3.2.4 Assessment of YTC base pad and covering Despite the obvious differences between each of the three piles, such as pile size and type of poultry litter/prior composting, qualitative comparisons were made with the broader goal of determining on-farm best management practices regarding over-winter field storage of poultry litter on British Columbia's Fraser River delta. The intensity of leaching and run-off which occurred under and around the piles was used to assess the effectiveness of the YTC base pad and covering layer at protecting soil quality and mitigating other environmental concerns. Leaching was most severe everywhere under Pile 3 as compared to the other piles. Pile 3 was made up of less than one quarter and one sixth of the volumes of poultry litter present in Piles 1 and 2, respectively, yet it had up to thirteen times the impact on soil quality based on ECs and available N levels. Soluble salt and NH4-N concentrations under the wet regions of Piles 1 and 2 were very similar (Figure 3.6). High levels of leaching under Pile 1 were expected due to its large size compared to Pile 3, as well as its composition, specifically fresh poultry litter. However, the hypothesis was that the YTC base pad would protect the soil below. Pile 2, though very large, was made up of a pre-composted mixture of PL and barnyard horse manure. As horse manure is much lower in N and salts than poultry litter and due to the stabilizing effect of composting, a reduced amount of leaching from this pile was expected (Table 3.3). 64 7000 6000 ~ 5000 OI J£ OI 4000 E, Z 3000 § 2000 1000 0 a 0-15cm • 15-30cm P PP w m ML 1 1C 1U 2C Treatment 2U Figure 3.6 Soil NH4-N concentrations under highly leached wet regions of all piles at end of storage period, sampled April 2006. Qualitative comparisons only. Ammonium and soluble salt concentrations under the dry cores of the piles clearly indicate that the YTC base pad in Pile 1 was effective at protecting the soil from leaching caused by water table rise (Figure 3.7). Pile 3 had the biggest effect on soil salinity under its core compared to the soils under the cores of the other piles. The smaller impact on soil quality of Pile 2 as compared to Pile 3 was likely a result of the pre-composting of the poultry litter with horse manure in Pile 2, which resulted in significantly lower total N concentrations as compared to the straight poultry litter in Pile 3 (Table 3.3). Furthermore, Pile 3 appeared to be in a low spot on the field, thus water was unable to run-off and more leaching occurred. 10 •E 6^ co •o O 4 LU • 0-15cm • 15-30cm 1C 111 P 2C Treatment 2U Figure 3.7 Soil ECs measured under the cores of the piles at the end of the storage period, sampled April 2006. 65 The YTC cover on Pile 1 appeared to increase leaching of salts in the wet middle region, while it had no effect on leaching in Pile 2. Again this could be a result of the pre-composting of the poultry litter in Pile 2. When uncovered poultry litter wets and dries it tends to form a crust, which limits gas exchange. Perhaps the composting of the poultry litter with horse manure in Pile 2 improved the staicture of the manure, thus improving the aeration and infiltration of precipitation. The YTC cover in Pile 1 apparently protected the poultry litter surface below from sealing off, thus allowing for increased infiltration and leaching as compared to the uncovered portion. At both Piles 1 and 2 the YTC cover appeared to protect the surrounding soil by decreasing run-off. The YTC cover has added benefits apart from the mitigation of nutrient run-off. These are pathogen reduction within the poultry litter as a result of increased temperatures caused by the YTC insulation, as well as the isolation of the poultry litter from wildlife. Birds are often seen on field stored poultry litter piles, feeding on insects living inside the pile. This is a possible pathway for disease transmission from caged livestock to wild bird populations, which is apparently mitigated with a layer of YTC. An analysis of the nutrient content of the YTC base pad materials after storage compared to the initial fall nutrient content revealed that the YTC base pad retained to some degree Cu, K, Na, P and NFL-."1" leached from the poultry litter. However due to large variability these increases were not always significant (See Appendix F for complete data set). The wet middle region under the YTC covered and uncovered sections of the pile, where leaching was most intense, contained elevated levels of Na and K (P < 0.01), as well as NH4-N and P (not significant at a= 0.05 due to extreme variability). The wet middle region under the uncovered section showed elevated levels of Cu (P < 0.1). 66 The 30 cm thickness of the YTC base pad was appropriate under the core of Pile 1, however the soil under the highly leached wet edges of the pile would have likely benefited from a thicker base pad. 3.3 Conclusions Crop development the spring following over-winter poultry litter storage was negatively impacted at all sites. The crop growing where Pile 1 had been stored showed the fewest negative effects, while no crop development occurred where Pile 3 had been stored. Pile 3 had the largest impact on soil quality under and around the pile. This was attributed to the lack of YTC base pad, and the uncomposted nature of the stored poultry litter. The YTC base pad in Pile 1 protected the soil below from leaching due to water table rise under the core of the pile, and to a lesser extent under the intensely leached wet outer regions of the pile. The YTC base pad was found to contain significantly elevated levels of Cu (P < 0.1), and Na and K (P < 0.05). The YTC cover on Piles 1 and 2 reduced run-off of nutrients by increasing infiltration of precipitation, and consequently increasing leaching. The off-site pre-composting of the poultry litter with barnyard horse manure in Pile 2 resulted in a more stable, less leachable product which appeared to have a smaller effect on soil quality over the storage period than the fresh poultry litter in Piles 1 and 3. Delta farmers should not store poultry litter directly on the soil, and would be well advised to examine the potential of an YTC base pad of greater than 30 cm thickness. The YTC base pad is not perfectly effective at mitigating environmental impacts of field stored poultry litter, and thus requires some modification. 67 The YTC cover plays the important role of isolating the poultry litter from wildlife whereby mitigating the spread of pathogens from caged livestock to wild bird and other animal populations. Regarding nutrients the YTC cover decreases run-off, and increases infiltration and consequently leaching. Pre-composting the manure off-site also protects soil quality. 68 4. General discussion and conclusions 4.1 Introduction This thesis employed a controlled column experiment and a field study to examine the ability of the City of Vancouver YTC to act as a filter and to mitigate environmental impacts of over-winter field stored poultry litter. The column study provided a controlled setting in which to examine the quality of leachate emanating from the poultry litter and YTC materials alone, as well as the effects of the YTC cover and base pad on the quality of the poultry litter leachate. In conjunction with the laboratory characterization of the materials, the column study provided an arena in which to form hypotheses regarding the retention of species by the YTC base pad, and increased solubility of certain species by the YTC cover. Upon scaling up to the field study where the challenges of on-farm research were present and true replication was absent, many of the processes observed in the column study were apparent, although often obscured by variability. This chapter seeks to make the connections between the column study and the field study in order to assess the YTC in its ability to mitigate environmental impacts of poultry litter field storage, and to suggest beneficial management practices (BMPs) for the over-winter field storage of poultry litter on British Columbia's Fraser River delta. Significance, potential applications, strengths and weaknesses of the research, and suggestions for future work will also be discussed. 4.2 Comparisons and interpretations of column and field studies The leachabilities of nutrients, metals and total solids from the YTC and PL materials determined through the column study are a useful indicator of the potential impacts that these materials could have on the environment in which they are stored over-winter. The poultry litter leached extremely high concentrations of NH4, P, K and Na, as well as moderately high 69 concentrations of Cu, Zn, Fe, Mn and S. This data confirmed the necessity of isolating the poultry litter from the surrounding environment during over-winter field storage in regions of high precipitation. In order for the YTC base pad to be an effective filter/barrier between the poultry litter and the surrounding environment the YTC itself must not be a significant source of potentially harmful leachate species, such as N, P, and heavy metals. This was the case for Cu, Zn, Mn and P however 1430 mg of total N were leached per kilogram of dry YTC material over the entire storage period. This is a moderate amount that had little effect on the soil under the core of Pile 1 in the field study, but could have negative effects if the leachate were to flow directly into a water body. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) outlines quality standards for compost used in filter berms for erosion control (USEPA 2006). The USEPA parameters are compared with the City of Vancouver YTC used in this study in Table 4.1. The YTC meets the criteria for pH, EC and organic matter content however the percentage of small sized particles is considerably higher than recommended. This small particle size was reflected in the 25 g total solids per kilogram dry YTC leached over the column study. Leaching and run-off of solids is a concern due to nutrients and metals which are sorbed onto the particle surfaces. This would likely not be a substantial problem for the YTC base pad as it lies flat on the soil surface. Solids run-off from the YTC cover could be a moderate concern however the field study showed that due to increased infiltration rates caused by the YTC cover run-off did not have a significant impact on the soil surrounding the covered poultry litter piles. 70 TABLE 4.1 Comparison of YTC quality with USEPA standards for compost used in erosion control filter berms Parameter USEPA standard YTC (n = 4) pH Maximum EC (dS m"1) Organic matter (%) Particle size 5.0-8.5 5.0 25-65 No more than 50% passing a 6.5 mm sieve 7.1 ±0.1 2.9 ±0.1 49 ± 0.8 80% passing a 6.5 mm sieve (USEPA 2006) The effects of the YTC base pad in the column and field studies are compared in Table 4.2. At times in the column study nutrient reductions in the leachate by the YTC base pad were observed while enrichments of the same nutrient were not detected in the YTC base pad material. This could be attributable to the increased sensitivity of leachate analysis as compared to analysis of the YTC material. High initial levels of a given nutrient in the YTC material could have obscured small increases in concentration of these nutrients measured at the end of the study. TABLE 4.2 Comparison of YTC base pad effects (P < 0.05) in column and field studies, n = 3 Column study Field Study Nutrient Concentration in base Cumulative mass Concentration in base pad under pad at completion of detected in highly leached wet regions at study leachate completion of study EC Enriched N/A No effect NH4 Enriched No effect No effect P Enriched Reduced No effect K Enriched No effect Enriched Ca Depleted Increased Depleted Na Enriched No effect Enriched Cu Enriched Reduced Enriched Zn No effect Reduced No effect Copper was consistently retained and calcium (Ca) was consistently depleted in the YTC base pads. These were the only consistencies observed across the three methods of analysis in the two studies. In the column study P was clearly reduced in the leachate and 71 enriched in the YTC base pad, however due to large variability in P concentrations of the Pile 1 YTC base pad no significant retention of P was detected in the field study. The EC, K, Na and NH4 were enriched in the YTC base pad after leaching in the column study however the leachate samples did not indicate significant reductions of these species in the treatments containing the YTC base pad. The YTC base pad in the field study was enriched in K and Na, whereas the variability in the NH4 and EC measurements was very large which obscured any significant enrichment of these species. Overall the data indicates that the YTC base pad sorbs soluble salts and releases them slowly over time, with no permanent immobilization of the ions. The quantity of these loosely held ions present in the base pad at the end of the storage period depends largely on the thickness and density of the YTC base pad as well as the amount and intensity of precipitation received. The YTC clearly immobilized Cu in both experiments, and likely retained P and Zn as well. The YTC cover in the column study increased the leaching of Cu, Zn, and N from the poultry litter below. In the highly leached wet regions of the field stored poultry litter the YTC cover significantly (P < 0.05) increased the leaching of salts and appeared to increase the leaching of NH4-N. Furthermore, in the field study the YTC cover increased infiltration of precipitation into the stored poultry litter, thus increasing leaching overall and decreasing run-off. The result of this was a larger impact on the soil directly below the pile with a smaller overall footprint of the stored manure on the surrounding field. 4.3 Potential of YTC base pad and assessment of appropriate thickness for over-winter field storage of poultry litter Given the metal and P retention capabilities of the YTC base pad determined through the column study using the leachate data (Table 4.3), potential retention capacities were calculated to be used for assessment of the required YTC base pad thickness in the field 72 (Table 4.4). These calculations were performed assuming the same YTC base pad dry bulk density as was used in the column study although this density is typically 1.5 times higher in the field. The higher density in the field would lead to longer contact times between the leachate and the YTC, as well as an increased mass of YTC material within a given base pad thickness, and thus would likely result in increased retention capacities. TABLE 4.3 Element YTC Retention Capacity (mg element kg"1 dry YTC) P 375 ±339 Cu 12 ±3 Zn 6±2 TABLE 4.4 Potential P, Cu, and Zn retention capacities of a cylindrical section of an YTC base pad of 30 cm diameter and increasing thickness Element Mass retained in 14 cm Mass to be retained by 30 Mass to be retained by 45 thickness cm thickness cm thickness (mg) P Max 2350 5040 7550 Min 520 1110 167Cu Max 55 117 175 Min 38 80 121 Zn Max 28 60 90 Min 20 43 64 *AI1 calculations assume an YTC base pad dry bulk density of 477 kg m"J, as was used in the column study. The amount of P retained by the YTC base pad was substantial yet highly variable. The amounts of Cu and Zn retained were more consistent however the total masses were much lower. These values are the maxima achieved in the column study but are not necessarily the absolute maxima, as the YTC was only subjected to the concentrations of these elements present in the leachate emanating from a 14 cm thick layer of poultry litter leached with 660 mm of precipitation. The calculated range of Cu and Zn retention capacities for the 30 cm thick YTC base pad would have been sufficient to retain the total cumulative 73 masses of these metals leached from the PL over the column study (Table 4.5). The high concentration of P leached from the PL coupled with the large variability in the YTC retention capacity of this element suggest that an YTC base pad of 45 cm thickness might not have been sufficient to retain the cumulative mass of P leached from the PL over the column study. However, there would have been a significant reduction in the extreme P concentrations in the poultry litter leachate which could serve to protect surrounding fresh and coastal waters from eutrophication caused by overland or subsurface flow of this leachate. TABLE 4.5 Element Cumulative mass leached from 2.32 kg dry PL over column study (mg) P 6510 ±570 Cu 92 ±5 Zn 44 ±3 Scaling up the thickness of the YTC base pad from the column study to field situations is very difficult due to the triangular shape of the windrows compared to the simple flat layered, gravity driven geometry of the columns. Regarding elements such as N, K, and Na, which were not conclusively retained by the YTC material, yet were enriched in the YTC base pads in the column and/or the field study, it would seem that a thicker base pad would provide a greater barrier to the leaching of these elements. Determining the appropriate depth would be highly subjective as the results for these elements were variable between treatments and experiments. Another important factor in the filtering capacity of the YTC base pad is the amount and intensity of cumulative precipitation to which the materials are exposed over the storage period, and the timing of these events. The column study indicated extremely high 74 concentrations of nutrients, metals and salts leaching from the PL alone and Y/PL columns until approximately 350 mm of precipitation had occurred. The columns with the YTC base pad conversely leached low to moderate concentrations until 350 mm of precipitation at which time three different effects occurred. First, as was the case for Cu and Zn, the concentrations remained low and then decreased to nearly zero. Second, as in the case of P, the concentration in the leachate increased, indicating the probable saturation of the YTC retention capacity for this element. Third, as in the cases of N and soluble salts, the concentrations remained moderate and continued to decrease slowly over time. In all cases the YTC base pad was effective at improving the leachate quality emanating from the poultry litter until 350 mm of precipitation. Therefore, whether the YTC is retaining the leachate species or simply acting as a physical barrier to them, one can hypothesize that the 30 cm thick base pad used in the field study, compared to the 14 cm thick base pad present in the column study, would be an effective barrier for more than 350 mm of cumulative precipitation and a 45 cm thick base pad would be even better. The significantly larger volume of manure stored on the YTC base pad in the field relative to the column study clearly puts greater pressure on the YTC filtering capacity, however the triangular shape of the windrow allows for some run-off. Also, the internal heating of the poultry litter pile gives rise to evaporation, which acts to counter leaching. The effect of this is mostly felt in the centre of the pile, thus leaching is kept to the bottom wet outer rim. In this region the maximum depth of saturated poultry litter overlying the YTC base pad observed in the field study was less than 1 m. The 30 cm thick base pad currently used in Delta proved to be deep enough to keep the manure raised off the soil surface and prevent leaching due to water table rise under the 75 core of the pile. In terms of leaching in the wet outer regions however this 30 cm thickness was not enough. Taking into account the metal and P retention capacities of the YTC, along with the buffering effect the YTC provides by acting as a physical barrier to soluble salts and NH4,1 propose that a 45 cm thick YTC base pad would be a more appropriate thickness under field stored poultry litter for protecting soil and water quality in the Delta region while not exceeding a practical quantity of YTC in terms of shipping and handling. 4.4 Further applications of YTC material as a filter and/or environmental buffer Many Delta farmers have small dedicated manure storage areas consisting of a cement base pad with three cement walls. Generally, the manure is left uncovered in these facilities, and thus the leachate is free to run-off due to the lack of absorption by the cement pad. Essentially the leachate is funneled in one direction by the three walls, concentrating it and potentially leading to overland flow or seepage into groundwater. A densely packed berm of YTC across the open side of such manure storage facilities could filter this leachate, removing heavy metals, some P, and moderating the soluble salt levels. As previously mentioned, similar berm type applications are currently being endorsed for use in erosion control by the USEPA. Compost is credited with retaining large volumes of water, sediment, heavy metals and other pollutants, providing a medium for vegetation establishment, and containing beneficial organisms which can degrade pollutants (USEPA 2006). The USEPA also recommends using a series of filter berms for maximum performance. This idea could be applied to field stored manure in which a windrow of poultry litter is stored on a base pad of YTC, and then at a distance away (e.g. 1 m) a berm of YTC could be built surrounding the pile. This could filter the leachate and run-off emanating from the stored manure which is flowing overland due to soil saturation. 76 As reaction with Ca and Mg was credited with much of the P retention by the YTC in the column study, it is hypothesized that a layer of calcium carbonate lime spread over the top surface of the YTC base pad prior to windrowing the poultry litter could improve this retention. Moore and Miller (1994) found that the addition of slaked lime (Ca(OH)2) to poultry litter at a rate of 43 g Ca kg"1 litter decreased soluble P levels from 2000 mg P kg"1 to < 1 mg P kg"1. Mixing lime into the poultry litter prior to windrowing would have the negative impact of encouraging NH3 volatilization due to the increased pH, and it would likely be too expensive and labour intensive to be practical. Conversely, spreading a layer of lime over the surface of the YTC base pad would be relatively simple and inexpensive. Furthermore, the soils in the Delta region are acidic (pH range for the two fields used in this study was 4.4 to 4.7) and would thus be positively impacted by the addition of a liming material. The pH of the YTC base pad would likely increase as leachate flowed through the lime layer, which would serve to increase the pH dependent CEC of the YTC material and thus also improve the metal retention capacity. 4.5 Broader perspective 4.5.1 Poultry litter storage options The Delta farmers have been shaping manure piles into windrows (i.e. triangular cross-sectional area) for the storage period at the recommendation of the Government of British Columbia (1995). This shape helps to maintain elevated temperatures within the pile, and it encourages run-off, thereby reducing pooling and the creation of saturated anoxic zones which produce offensive odors. Conversely, the Government of Ontario recommends building a pile which is "as flat as possible" on top in order to encourage infiltration and decrease run-off (Government of Ontario 2005). This appears to be a reasonable method of 77 reducing the impact of nutrient run-off on the surrounding soil. A layer of YTC over a flat topped pile could help to reduce odors and improve infiltration, thus decreasing run-off as well as leaching in the wet bottom region of the pile. Ideally, manure piles should be covered with tarpaulins, however the Delta farmers found that these were expensive, blew off in the wind, and were stolen. Thus, they tried covering the piles with YTC. Tarpaulins are impermeable and thus prevent leaching and run off if they completely cover the pile and remain in place, but they provide no thermal insulation, and they contribute to the waste stream. Conversely, YTC is permeable and thus leaching is a factor. However, the YTC helps to insulate the poultry litter pile, which keeps the temperatures high, deactivating pathogens, and thus increasing food safety (Bomke and Temple 2004). Manure storage responsibility is another important issue. Currently, few poultry producers in the Fraser Valley have the capacity to store their poultry litter beyond one production cycle. Thus, the manure is shipped at all times of the year to crop producers who must then bear the storage burden. This shifts the potentially negative ecological impacts of manure storage from the region which is experiencing the economic benefits of poultry production, to a separate region which receives no compensation from the intensive poultry industry. In the Netherlands it is legislated that livestock producers have the capacity to store all manure produced in the fall and winter, while in Denmark similar legislation states that livestock producers must have sufficient storage capacity for all the manure produced annually (Brandjes et al. 1996). Similar legislation in British Columbia would serve to protect the ecology of the Fraser River delta from the harmful effects of over-winter poultry litter field storage. 78 4.5.2 Use of poultry litter in crop production on BC's Fraser delta Field application of poultry litter is an important means of nutrient recycling for this over-abundant agricultural waste product. A report prepared for the Sustainable Poultry Farming Group (SPFG) found that in 2001 the poultry industry was the largest producer of manure based N and P in BC's lower Fraser Valley, where there was a manure nutrient surplus of 4 000 tonnes of N and 5 700 tonnes of P (Timmenga and Associates Inc. 2003). A report put out by Agriculture and Agri-food Canada and the BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands on the soil nutrient status of agricultural fields in the Lower Fraser Valley in 2005 found that 31% of the 172 fields sampled had fall residual soil N levels of greater than 99 kg ha"1 (Kowalenko et al. 2007). Furthermore, 91% of the fields sampled in Delta were in the high to very high risk category of P pollution potential. As most farmers apply poultry litter based on crop N requirements, P is typically over-applied and thus builds up in the soil. In the United States the P-index is used to identify fields vulnerable to P losses and to limit the application of manure once a threshold is reached (Lemunyon and Gilbert 1993). Brock et al. (2006) studied Cu and Zn accumulations in soils receiving repeated applications of livestock manures. They concluded that although Cu and Zn did accumulate significantly in soils, the P-index would limit manure applications before Cu and Zn reached toxic levels. No such index exists in BC, thus the repeated application of poultry litter to agricultural fields in Delta is cause for concern, especially given the already commonly high P levels. Several studies have found that the most effective way to control odors and nutrient run-off/leaching from stored manure is through dietary adjustments (Mikesell 2002; Brandjes et al. 1996). In intensive livestock production animals are fed an excess of nutrients, as well as metals, antimicrobials, and hormones (Gupta et al. 2005) much of which are excreted 79 undigested. Nicholson et al. (1999) found that the concentrations of Cu and Zn in poultry litter were up to five times higher than those in poultry feeds, indicating a low efficiency of utilization of these metals by the birds. The necessity of such feed supplementation is questionable, though the impact on the ecosystem when such poultry litter is used in crop production is clearly negative. There are also food safety concerns related to the uptake of these heavy metals and antimicrobials by crops for human consumption, as well as ecological concerns related to anti-microbial resistant bacteria. The above concerns suggest a need for better regulation of the use of poultry litter in crop production in ecologically sensitive regions subject to intensive winter leaching, such as Delta. 4.6 Risk Assessment The effects of field stored poultry litter on the soil are dramatic. To walk onto an agricultural field in August which is fully covered in a healthy pea crop and then to see a 150 m~ bald patch is startling. But the larger question remains; what percentage of the total cultivated land area in Delta is affected by excessive nutrients and salinity from field stored poultry litter? In this research the three stored manure piles were located on two fields with a total area of approximately 36 ha. The maximum footprint of these piles, including aim halo of run-off around each pile, totaled 0.19 ha, which is equivalent to 0.5% of the cultivated land area over which the stored manure was spread. From the above assessment it is clear that though the visual affects of the stored manure on the soil are dramatic, the overall affects in terms of crop production are small. It is likely then, that the most significant impact that these piles have on the surrounding environment is through direct contact with wildlife, and run-off and leachate waters which travel either over-land or as subsurface flow eventually reaching groundwater, ditches, 80 streams, and coastal waters. On the south and west sides of the Fraser Delta lies an internationally important estuary. It is the largest estuary on the Pacific coast of North America, home to millions of waterfowl, shore birds, and birds of prey, and it is an important crossroads on the Pacific flyway where migratory birds from three continents converge (British Columbia Waterfowl Society 2006). Protecting these waters from pollutants from agricultural practices is of the utmost importance. Furthermore, ensuring that wild birds do not congregate on manure piles for warmth or feeding purposes is critical. 4.6.1 Beneficial management practices • Store poultry litter in a different location on a given field each year to avoid long term damage to soil quality, and to avoid saturation of the soil P and heavy metal retention capacities as well as the capacity to retain other chemicals such as anti-microbial compounds and hormones. • If possible, store poultry litter on a slightly elevated place on the field to avoid pooling of water. Low spots should be avoided. • Store poultry litter on an YTC base pad of at least 30 cm, or preferably 45 cm thickness, in order to protect soil and water quality from leaching due to water table rise, as well as to mitigate some of the negative effects on the soil under the highly leached wet outer regions of the pile. • Thoroughly mix the YTC base pad and cover in with the poultry litter prior to field application in order to ensure even application of the nutrients retained by the YTC base pad for crop production, and also to amend the soil with organic matter. • Cover field stored poultry litter with a 15 cm thick layer of YTC to protect wildlife such as, migratory birds, coyotes, and rodents from pathogens and anti-microbial 81 compounds present in the poultry litter. The cover also insulates the pile, thus leading to pathogen reduction and increased food safety. • If possible, pre-compost the poultry litter off-site to create a more stable product for over-winter storage. 4.7 Assessment of thesis research 4.7.1 Strengths of research One of the clear strengths of this thesis was the combination of a controlled experiment and an on-farm field study. Although the experimental design in the field study did not permit a precise statistical model for comparing the piles, the study was nonetheless very informative in terms of comparing the processes observed in the column study to a practical situation. The column study provided a controlled setting in which to examine precise concentrations of nutrients and metals present in the leachate. This allowed for detailed analysis of the effects of the YTC cover and base pad on the quality of leachate emanating from the poultry litter. Detecting increases in metal or P concentrations in soils under poultry litter piles was troublesome due to the variable background levels of these elements. The variability of nutrients measured within the YTC base pad at the end of the storage period was also very large. Therefore, determining if the YTC base pad retained metals or P based on the field stored poultry litter piles was inconclusive. However, from the column study it is logical to assume that the leachate and run-off waters leaving Pile 1, which was built on an YTC base pad, had lower P, Cu and Zn concentrations than those leaving the other two piles which lacked YTC base pads. 82 4.7.2 Weaknesses of research The most obvious weakness of this research was the lack of replication in the field pile treatments. Ideally Piles 1 and 2 would have been comprised of the same poultry litter materials. Fully half of both piles would have been covered with YTC and the other half would have been left uncovered. This would have provided four distinct yet comparable treatments. Two replications each of these piles on other fields would have provided four clear treatments with three replications. This however was not possible due to the quantity of manure required by the participating farmer, the variable sizes of his fields, and the requirement to compost some of the manure due to certain fields being under certified organic production. Sample replication was useful for indicating the variability within each pile. This variability was often very large, especially when sampling the YTC base pad material. This indicated that true replication was needed in order to make broad conclusions. Some of the variability in sampling the YTC base pad might have been mitigated through a different sampling protocol. For sampling, an excavator made a large cut in the pile from the apex to the soil surface and out to one side. This provided two walls from which to scrape the desired layer. The YTC base pad was extremely compacted and difficult to sample, and thus the actual sample collected might have been biased towards the more easily removed sections. For sampling the YTC base pad, it would have been preferable to have the excavator scrape off the stored poultry litter, leaving the base pad exposed. Then a 30 cm deep core of the YTC base pad could have been collected in each of the desired sampling locations. This would have been a more precise sampling method. Another weakness of the research was the lack of soil microbial analyses. It would have been useful to know whether the soil microbial ecosystem was affected by the stored 83 poultry litter, and if these effects were mitigated by the presence of the YTC base pad and/or cover. 4.7.3 Status of hypotheses and current state knowledge The first hypothesis listed in the introductory chapter regarding the YTC base pad "sorbing metals, salts, and nutrients being leached from the poultry litter layers above" has been confirmed to some degree. The column study proved that the YTC base pad retains Cu, Zn and some P. The determination of the CEC of the YTC material in the laboratory (equal to 57.5 cmolc kg"1 dry YTC), combined with the Ca and Mg leaching dynamics in the column study proved that cation exchange was an integral part of the metal retention. Salts and N were not retained by the YTC base pad, however the base pad did serve to moderate their concentrations in the leachate by decreasing the initially very high concentrations and releasing them more slowly over time. The second hypothesis stated that "the soil directly underneath the poultry litter storage piles lacking an YTC base pad will be degraded and crop growth the following spring will be stunted, as compared to the rest of the field and to the site where the poultry litter storage pile was built on an YTC base pad". This was partially incorrect. The soil below each of the piles was degraded and crop growth was affected the following summer, including under Pile 1 which was built entirely on a 30 cm thick YTC base pad. However, the crop health under Pile 1 was more variable than under the other piles, with some regions showing negative effects and other regions showing lush growth. The final hypothesis referred to the soil surrounding the YTC covered sections being less affected by nutrients and salinity than the soil surrounding the uncovered sections. This was observed in both Piles 1 and 2 however the increases in soil nutrients beside the 84 uncovered sections were not always significantly higher than those beside the covered sections. Crop development around the covered sections of Pile 1 was clearly improved as compared to the crop development around the uncovered sections of that pile. The increased infiltration and thus leaching caused by the YTC cover was not predicted, but it served to decrease run-off and thus protect the soil surrounding the piles. 4.8 Suggestions for future research The suggestions for future research can be grouped into five sections: 1) assessment of a thicker YTC base pad, 2) assessment of an YTC berm, 3) assessment of a flat-topped pile, 4) application of a lime layer to the YTC base pad, and 5) effects of field stored poultry litter on the soil microbial community. The assessment of a thicker YTC base pad would be best accomplished in the field, through the comparison of a few piles with no base pad, 30 cm thick and 45 cm thick pads. The assessment of the YTC berm could be carried out around a cement manure storage pad as well as around a field stored poultry litter pile with or without an YTC base pad. Collection of leachate and run-off samples in the field would be required. The assessment of a flat-topped pile would need to be carried out in the field. Two flat-topped treatments, one with an YTC cover and one with no cover, as well as two piles of triangular cross-section, one with an YTC cover and one with no cover, could be compared. Piles of equal mass would be a necessity. Nutrients found in soil samples under and around the piles could be used as indicators of leaching and run-off. The application of lime to the YTC base pad could be studied in a column experiment in order to closely observe the leaching dynamics. This might also give indications as to the quantity of lime required to be effective. A complimentary or subsequent field study would also be required. An analysis of the soil microbial communities using phospholipid fatty acid profiling (PLFA) under and 85 around some poultry litter piles in the fall, spring, summer and following fall could give an indication of the effects that the stored poultry litter had on the soil microbes and the length of time required for these communities to recover. PLFA provides the structure of the microbial community in proportions of fungi, gram positive bacteria, gram negative bacteria, and actinomycetes. 86 References American Public Health Association. 1998. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 20th ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC. American Public Health Association. 1995. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 19th ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC. Beauchemin, S., D. Hesterberg, J. Chou, M. Beauchemin, R.R. Simard, and D.E. Sayers. 2003. Speciation of phosphorus in phosphoms-enriched agricultural soils using x-ray absorption near-edge structure spectroscopy and chemical fractionation. J. Environ. Qual. 32:1809- 1819. Berg, W., R. Brunsch, and I. Pazsiczki. 2006. Greenhouse gas emissions from covered slurry compared with uncovered during storage. J. Agric, Ecosys. and Environ. 112: 129 - 134. Blake, G.R. 1965. Bulk density. Pages 374-390 in CA. Black, ed. Methods of Soil Analysis, American Society of Agronomy Inc. Madison, Wisconsin, USA. Bomke, A.A. and W.D. Temple 2004. Poultry litter and compost resource stewardship practices on the Fraser River Delta: Final Report. Agriculture Environment Partnership Initiative, Project #01-054. Brady, N.C and Weil, R.R. 2002. The Nature and Properties of Soils, 13th ed. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA. Brandjes, P.J., J. de Wit, H.G. van der Meer, and H. van Keulen. 1996. Environmental impact of animal manure management. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. [Online] Available: http://www.fao.org/wairdoc5/Iead/x6U3e/x6113e00.HTM 123 January 2007]. Brewer, L.J. and D.M. Sullivan. 2003. Maturity and stability evaluation of composted yard trimmings. Compost Sci. and UtiL, 11(2):96 — 112. British Columbia Waterfowl Society. 2006. A sanctuary in the heart of the Fraser River estuary. British Columbia Waterfowl Society, Delta, BC. [Online] Available: http://www.reifelbirdsanctuary.com/fraser.html. [16 February 2007]. Brock, E.H., Q.M. Ketterings, and M. McBride. 2006. Copper and zinc accumulation in poultry and dairy manure amended fields. Soil Sci. 171(5):388-399. Carter, M.R. ed. 1993. Soil sampling and methods of analysis. Canadian Society of Soil Science. 87 Chapman, H.D. 1965. Cation Exchange Capacity. Pages 902-904 in CA. Black, ed. Methods of Soil Analysis, American Society of Agronomy Inc. Madison, Wisconsin, USA. Chieng, S. and S. Gin. 2003. Effects of sand layer on subsurface-silt drainage and drainage water quality in golf courses. American Society of Agricultural Engineers Annual International Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. Chipperfield, K. 1996. Sustainable Poultry Farming Group Fact Sheet. [Online] Available: http://www.sustainablepoultrv.ca/NuFactSheet/factsheetnutrientcontent.htm [30 December 2005]. Chipperfield, K. 2005. Groundwater Protection Program 2004/2005 Annual Report. Sustainable Poultry Farming Group. Abbotsford, BC. City of Vancouver Landfill 2005. Composting at the Vancouver Landfill. [Online] Available: http://www.citv.vancouver.bc.ca/engsvcs/solidwaste/landfill/compost.htm. [22 December 2005]. City of Vancouver Landfill. 2005. Compost quality 2005. City of Vancouver, Vancouver, BC. Composting Council of Canada. 2000. Setting the standard: A summary of compost standards in Canada. [Online] Available: http://www.compost.org/standard.html. [8 January 2006]. Conrad, P. 1995. Commercial applications for compost biofilters. BioCycle 36(10):57-60. Couillard, D. 1994. The use of peat in wastewater treatment. Water Resour. Res. 28(6): 1261- 1274. Environment Canada 2005-2006. Monthly Data Report 2005-2006. [Online] Available: www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/monthlvdata e.html [15 September 2006]. Environment Canada. 2004. Canadian Climate Normals 1971-2000. [Online] Available: www.climate.weatlieroffice.ee.gc.ca/climate normals/results e.html [20 December 2006]. Faucette, L.B., C.F. Jordan, L.M. Risse, and M. Cabrera. 2005. Evaluation of stormwater from compost and conventional erosion control practices in construction activities. J. Soil Water Cons. 60(6):288-298. 88 Fraser Basin Council. 2001. Nutrient management planning strategies for the Fraser Valley: Report of the nutrient management action plan working group of the Partnership Committee on Agriculture and the Environment. Vancouver, BC. Garcia, C, T. Hernandez, F. Costa, and M. Ayuso. 1992. Evaluation of the maturity of municipal waste compost using simple chemical parameters. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal, 23:1501-1512. Garland, G.A. and Grist, T.A. 1995. The compost story: From soil enrichment to pollution remediation. BioCycle 36(10):53-56. Government of British Columbia. 1992-04-01. Agricultural Waste Control Regulation. [Online] Available: http://www.qp.gov.be.ca/stratreg/reg/E/EnvMgmt/131 92.htm. [7 December 2006]. Government of British Columbia. 1995. Waste management factsheet: Field storage of agricultural waste. Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Abbotsford, BC. [Online] Available: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/publist/300Series/383100-3.pdf. [18 December 2006]. Government of British Columbia. 2006. British Columbia approved water quality guidelines. Ministry of Environment, Environmental Protection Division. [Online] Available: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/wq guidelines.html#approved. [28 March 2006]. Government of Ontario. 2005. Factsheet: Temporary field storage of solid manure or prescribed materials. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. [Online] Available: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/05-009.htm#tab4. [18 December 2006]. Grimes, S.M., G.H. Taylor, and J. Cooper. 1999. The availability and binding of heavy metals in compost derived from household waste. J. Chem. Technol. and Biotechnol. 74:1125- 1130. Gupta, G. and W. Gardner. 2005. Use of clay mineral (montmorillonite) for reducing poultry litter leachate toxicity (EC50). J. of Hazardous Materials 118(1-3): 81-83. Gupta, G. and P. Kelly. 1992. Poultry litter toxicity comparison from various bioassays. Environ. Sci. Health A27(4): 1083-1093. Haug, R.T. 1993. The Practical handbook of compost engineering. Lewis Publishers. Toronto, Canada. Jurries, D. 2004. Environmental protection and enhancement with compost. State of 89 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Northwest Region. Portland, Oregon. Karathanasis, A.D. and Y.L. Thompson. 1993. Substrate effects on metal retention and speciation in simulated acid mine drainage wetlands. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 50:421-429. Kelleher, B.P., J.J. Leahy, A.M. Henihan, T.F. O'Dwyer, D. Sutton, and M.J. Leahy. 2001. Advances in poultry litter disposal technology - a review. Biores. Technol. 83:27-36 Khalid, R. A., W. H. Patrick, Jr., and R. D. DeLaune. 1977. Phosphorus sorption characteristics of flooded soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 41:305-310. Kowalenko, C.G. 1993. Total and fractions of sulfur P.65-74 in M.R. Carter, ed. Soil sampling and methods of analysis, Laval University, Quebec, Canada. Kowalenko, C.G., Schmidt, O., and G. Hughes-Games. 2007. Fraser Valley soil nutrient study 2005. British Columbia Agriculture Council; Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Pacific Agriculture Research Centre, and BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, Abbotsford, BC. Lavkulich, L.M. 1978. Methods manual, pedology laboratory. Department of Soil Science, University of British Columbia. Lax, A., A. Roig and F. Costa. 1986. A method for determining the cation-exchange capacity of organic materials. Plant Soil 94(3):349 - 355. Leeson, S. and Summers J.D. 2005. Commercial poultry nutrition, 3rd ed. University Books, Guelph, Ontario. Lemunyon, J.L and R.G Gilbert. 1993. The concept and need for a phosphorus assessment tool. J. Prod. Agric. 6:483-486. Lindsay, W. L. 1979. Chemical Equilibria in Soils. Wiley-Interscience. New York. Luttmerding, H.A. 1980. Soils of the Langley-Vancouver map area: RAB Bulletin 18, Vol. 1. Report 15 BC Soil Survey. Ministry of Environment, Kelowna, BC. Manios, T., E.I. Stentiford, and P. Millner. 2003. Removal of heavy metals from a metalliferous water solution by Typha latifolia plants and sewage sludge compost. Chemosphere 53:487 - 494. McKeague, J.A. 1978. Manual of Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. Prepared by Subcommittee (of Canada Soil Survey Committee) on Methods of Analysis. 2nd Edition. Ottawa, Ontario. 90 Mikesell, R.E. Jr. 2002. Odor remediation and siting considerations for Pennsylvania swine farms. Ph.D. Thesis, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, 32 pp. Mills, H.A and J.B. Jones, Jr. 1979. Nutrient deficiencies and toxicities in plants: Nitrogen. J. Plant Nutr. 1:101. Moore, P.A. and Miller, D.M. 1994. Decreasing phosphorus solubility in poultry litter with aluminum, calcium, and iron amendments. J. Environ. Qual., 23:325-330. Nicholson, F.A., B.J. Chambers, J.R. Williams, and R.J. Unwin. 1999. Heavy metal contents of livestock feeds and animal manures in England and Wales. Bioresour. Technol. 70:23-31. Puumala, M. 2001. Storage of manure in heaps. In Sustainable handling and utilization of livestock manure from animals to plants, Rom, H.B, and C.G. Sorenson, eds. Proceedings of NJF Seminar no. 320 Denmark, 16-19 January 2001. DIAS report Animal Husbandry no.21. Danish Institue of Agricultural Sciences, Tjele. Reddy, K.R., R.H. Kadlec, E. Flaig, and P.M. Gale. 1999. Phosphorus retention in streams and wetlands: A Review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol., 29(1):83 -146. Rodhe, L. and S. Karlsson. 2002. Ammonia emissions from boiler manure - Influence of storage and spreading method. Biosys. Eng. 82(4):455 - 462. Saharinen, M.H 1998. Evaluation of Changes in CEC During Composting. Compost Sci. Util. 6(4):29-38. Schreier, H., R. Bestbier, G. Dersen, and P. Brisbin. 2000. Issues, trends and concerns about agriculture nutrient management in Lower Fraser Valley. Institute for Resources and Environment, University of British Columbia. Vancouver, BC, Canada. Sheikhzadeh, G.A.; Mehrabian, M.A.; Mansouri, S.H.; Sarrafi, A. 2004. Computational modelling of the unsaturated flow of liquid in heap leaching, using the results of column tests to calibrate the model. /. Process Mech. Eng. 218:277-289. Sustainable Poultry Farming Group. 1996. Fact Sheet. [Online] Available: http://www.sustainablepoultrv.ca/NuFactSheet/factsheetnutrientcontent.htm [30 December 30 2005]. Thompson, W.H., P.B. Leege, P.D. Millner, and M.E. Watson. 2001. Test methods for the examination of composting and compost. The US Composting Council Research and Education Foundation, and The United States Department of 91 Agriculture, Washington, DC. Timmenga & Associates, Inc. 2003. Evaluation of options for Fraser Valley poultry manure utilization. Prepared for the Sustainable Poultry Farming Group, Vancouver, BC. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. National pollutant discharge elimination system: Storm water fact sheets. [Online] Available: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stonnwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm. [8 August 2006]. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Test Methods. [Online] Available: http://www.epa.gov/sw-846/main.htm. [22 November 2006]. Wolf, A.M., P.J.A. Kleinman, A.N. Sharpley and D.B. Beegle. 2005. Development of a water-extractable phosphorus test for manure: An interlaboratory study. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. J. 69:695-700. Wolterson, E. 1993. The Relationship Between Electrical Conductivity Measured on a Saturated Paste Extract and Electrical Conductivity Measured on a 2:1 Extract in C.G. Kowalenko, ed. Soil test analysis methods for British Columbia agricultural crops. British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food, Victoria, BC. 92 Appendix A: Column construction Figure A.l Photo of upside down column showing the amber tubing used for leachate collection, and the air inlet loop inside the jug. Figure A.2 Photo of packing the columns. The light brown layer is the poultry litter and the dark brown is the YTC. 93 Figure A.3 Photo of the top of the column table at Totem field, UBC, Vancouver. Dark brown circles are treatments in which the YTC is on top. Light brown circles are treatments where the poultry litter is on top. The two green lids are sandwich treatments that were covered for the duration of the experiment. The data was not used in this thesis. Figure A.4 Photo of the two columns used for TDR data collection. The probes were left in place for the duration of the experiment and the TDR instrument was brought out regularly for readings. The treatment on the far left was a sandwich treatment, and the treatment on the right was a PL alone treatment. 94 Appendix B: Time domain reflectrometry data Table B.l Descriptions of locations of TDR probes in columns Probe no. Column Description 1 S 34 cm below column surface, i.e. 6 cm into YTC base pad layer 2 S 26 cm below column surface, i.e. 12 cm into PL layer 3 s 16 cm below column surface, i.e. 2 cm into PL layer 4 s 8 cm below column surface, i.e. 8 cm into YTC cover layer 5 PL 12 cm into PL 6 PL 5 cm into PL Table B.2 Raw data from TDR measurements over column study Date Probe 1 Probe 2 Probe 3 Probe 4 Probe 5 Probe 6 Kaz 11/8/2005 12.66 3.94 3.1 5.22 2.36 2.36 11/10/2005 11.36 4.09 4.09 6.11 2.03 2.2 11/15/2005 11.36 3.94 5.04 9.2 2.13 7.07 11/18/2005 12.13 4.56 10.62 9.66 2.24 N/A 11/24/2005 14.9 4.4 N/A 10.9 2.02 N/A 12/1/2005 16.97 9.66 N/A 12.66 N/A N/A 12/5/2005 20.2 16.97 N/A 14.03 N/A N/A 12/12/2005 N/A 16.97 N/A 10.9 N/A N/A 1/3/2006 N/A N/A 23.7 8.98 N/A N/A 1/18/2006 N/A N/A 25.56 16.97 N/A 17.91 2/1/2006 N/A 18.55 23.7 8.43 31.56 14.88 2/14/2006 N/A 17.28 20.2 14.03 27.49 14.03 2/24/2006 N/A 16.36 18.55 6.49 20.2 13.47 zKa - apparent dielectric constant, no units. 95 Appendix C: Column study data Table C.l Total solids content, EC and pH of leachates. Treatment Sample Leachate Volatile Name Date Precipitation Replicate Volume TSS Ash DOM Ash Fraction EC PH (mm) (mL) (mg L1) (%) (dS m"1) YTC Nov-15 41.4 1 582 12500 9000 3500 64 36 10 7.2 YTC Nov-15 41.4 2 613 14000 8500 5500 61 39 11 7.1 YTC Nov-15 41.4 3 454 14000 8500 5500 55 45 11 7.1 YTC Dec-05 77.2 1 1150 12000 4500 7500 38 62 10 7.2 YTC Dec-05 77.2 2 1300 13500 5000 8500 37 63 12 7.2 YTC Dec-05 77.2 3 1220 13500 5500 8000 41 59 12 7.1 PL Dec-05 77.2 1 712 38000 20500 17500 54 46 48 8.1 PL Dec-05 77.2 2 720 20500 11500 9000 56 44 32 8.2 PL Dec-05 77.2 3 460 29500 16500 13000 56 44 42 8.1 YTC Dec-20 106.2 1 1680 6333 4333 2000 68 32 6.5 7.7 YTC Dec-20 106.2 2 1655 7667 5000 2667 65 35 6.4 7.8 YTC Dec-20 106.2 3 1650 9000 6000 3000 67 33 6.8 7.6 YTC/PL Dec-20 106.2 1 1795 19500 10000 9500 58 42 35 7.7 YTC/PL Dec-20 106.2 2 1443 21000 11000 10000 63 37 37 7.7 YTC/PL Dec-20 106.2 3 1520 30000 14500 15500 57 43 42 7.7 PL/YTC Dec-20 106.2 1 597 16500 10500 6000 51 49 21 7.0 PL/YTC Dec-20 106.2 2 1024 15000 10000 5000 52 48 21 7.0 PL/YTC Dec-20 106.2 3 928 18000 11000 7000 48 52 21 7.0 YTC/PL/YTC Dec-20 106.2 1 1223 25000 14500 10500 64 36 34 7.6 YTC/PL/YTC Dec-20 106.2 2 1022 20000 12500 7500 67 33 27 7.6 YTC/PL/YTC Dec-20 106.2 3 1210 21000 12000 9000 61 39 30 7.7 YTC Jan 3/4 245 1 10600 3333 1667 1666 50 50 2.9 7.2 YTC Jan 3/4 245 2 10260 4000 2333 1667 58 42 2.7 7.2 YTC Jan 3/4 245 3 10450 3333 2000 1333 60 40 3.0 7.0 PL Jan 3/4 245 1 9775 8500 4000 4500 61 39 20 7.4 PL Jan 3/4 245 2 8415 16500 8000 8500 68 32 21 7.8 ON Treatment Sample Leachate Volatile Name Date Precipitation Replicate Volume TSS Ash DOM Ash Fraction EC pH (mm) (mL) (mg L"1) (%) (dS m"1) PL Jan 3/4 245 3 9500 12500 6500 6000 68 32 25 7.6 YTC/PL Jan 3/4 245 1 8355 17000 7500 9500 47 53 25 7.2 YTC/PL Jan 3/4 245 2 10400 17000 8000 9000 49 52 24 7.1 YTC/PL Jan 3/4 245 3 9080 12000 6000 6000 52 48 24 7.2 PL/YTC Jan 3/4 245 1 8220 17000 11000 6000 65 35 21 7.4 PL/YTC Jan 3/4 245 2 10430 15500 10500 5000 68 32 22 7.2 PL/YTC Jan 3/4 245 3 7610 18000 12500 5500 69 31 23 8.1 YTC/PL/YTC Jan 3/4 245 1 7930 15500 9500 6000 44 56 22 7.6 YTC/PL/YTC Jan 3/4 245 2 7265 15500 10500 5000 47 53 24 7.4 YTC/PL/YTC Jan 3/4 245 3 7795 19000 1300 17700 50 50 26 7.6 YTC Jan 11/06 344.6 1 8190 1667 1000 667 60 40 1.7 7.5 YTC Jan 11/06 344.6 2 8050 1000 333 667 33 67 1.2 7.4 YTC Jan 11/06 344.6 3 8295 1000 333 667 33 67 1.5 7.4 PL Jan 11/06 344.6 1 7710 5000 2000 3000 40 60 2.8 7.3 PL Jan 11/06 344.6 2 7005 3500 1500 2000 43 57 6.0 8.0 PL Jan 11/06 344.6 3 8270 5000 2000 3000 40 60 6.0 7.8 YTC/PL Jan 11/06 344.6 1 7740 6667 3000 3667 62 39 4.8 7.5 YTC/PL Jan 11/06 344.6 2 7750 4667 2000 2667 59 41 3.6 7.3 YTC/PL Jan 11/06 344.6 3 6980 7333 3000 4333 57 44 7.5 7.7 PL/YTC Jan 11/06 344.6 1 7350 8333 4667 3666 56 44 17 7.7 PL/YTC Jan 11/06 344.6 2 7328 7000 383-1 3166 55 45 7.8 PL/YTC Jan 11/06 344.6 3 7305 5667 3000 2667 53 47 17 7.8 YTC/PL/YTC Jan 11/06 344.6 1 7180 6500 4000 2500 45 55 16 7.5 YTC/PL/YTC Jan 11/06 344.6 2 7400 11000 6500 4500 43 57 17 7.7 YTC/PL/YTC Jan 11/06 344.6 3 7690 11500 6500 5000 41 59 14 7.8 YTC Jan 18/06 418.2 1 4840 1000 500 500 50 50 0.9 7.0 YTC Jan 18/06 418.2 2 4765 750 500 250 67 33 1.0 7.0 YTC Jan 18/06 418.2 3 4940 750 500 250 67 33 0.9 7.0 PL Jan 18/06 418.2 1 4610 750 250 500 33 67 1.6 7.0 PL Jan 18/06 418.2 2 4180 1250 500 750 40 60 1.8 7.4 —1 Treatment Sample Leachate Volatile Name Date Precipitation Replicate Volume TSS Ash DOM Ash Fraction EC PH (mm) (mL) (mg L"1) (%) (dS m"1) PL Jan 18/06 418.2 3 4750 1000 250 750 25 75 1.6 7.1 YTC/PL Jan 18/06 418.2 1 5080 2333 1333 1000 57 43 7.3 7.4 YTC/PL Jan 18/06 418.2 2 5005 2000 1000 1000 50 50 16 7.4 YTC/PL Jan 18/06 418.2 3 4540 3667 1667 2000 46 55 8.0 7.4 PL/YTC Jan 18/06 418.2 1 4900 3667 1667 2000 46 55 5.8 7.7 PUYTC Jan 18/06 418.2 2 5160 2667 1333 1334 50 50 4.3 7.6 PL/YTC Jan 18/06 418.2 3 4890 3000 1000 2000 33 67 5.0 7.6 YTC/PL/YTC Jan 18/06 418.2 1 4840 5667 3667 2000 65 35 3.4 7.3 YTC/PL/YTC Jan 18/06 418.2 2 4900 7000 4333 2667 62 38 2.5 7.2 YTC/PL/YTC Jan 18/06 418.2 3 5240 5000 3000 2000 60 40 4.4 7.4 YTC Feb. 1/06 515.2 1 7595 750 375 375 50 50 0.8 7.0 YTC Feb. 1/06 515.2 2 7350 500 250 250 50 50 0.9 7.0 YTC Feb. 1/06 515.2 3 7880 750 375 375 50 50 0.7 7.1 PL Feb.1/06 515.2 1 7890 1000 500 500 50 50 1.2 7.2 PL Feb. 1/06 515.2 2 7090 1500 750 750 50 50 1.3 7.6 PL Feb. 1/06 515.2 3 8005 1250 500 750 40 60 1.2 7.3 YTC/PL Feb. 1/06 515.2 1 8250 2000 1000 1000 50 50 2.2 7.5 YTC/PL Feb. 1/06 515.2 2 8300 1750 750 1000 43 57 1.9 7.2 YTC/PL Feb. 1/06 515.2 3 7595 1750 1000 750 57 43 2.4 7.3 PL/YTC Feb. 1/06 515.2 1 8250 2000 750 1250 50 50 2.8 7.7 PL/YTC Feb. 1/06 515.2 2 8730 2000 750 1250 50 50 2.8 7.6 PL/YTC Feb. 1/06 515.2 3 7875 2333 750 1583 43 57 3.6 7.7 YTC/PL/YTC Feb.1/06 515.2 1 7825 4000 1250 2750 42 58 4.3 7.6 YTC/PL/YTC Feb. 1/06 515.2 2 7995 3667 1500 2167 55 45 6.0 7.6 YTC/PL/YTC Feb. 1/06 515.2 3 7815 4000 1500 2500 50 50 5.0 7.8 YTC Feb. 14/06 554.2 1 2160 600 300 300 50 50 0.8 7.4 YTC Feb. 14/06 554.2 2 2130 700 400 300 57 43 0.9 7.3 YTC Feb. 14/06 554.2 3 2115 700 400 300 57 43 0.7 7.4 PL Feb. 14/06 554.2 1 2180 1100 600 500 55 46 1.1 7.3 PL Feb. 14/06 554.2 2 2005 800 400 400 50 50 1.3 7.6 oo Treatment Sample Leachate Volatile Name Date Precipitation Replicate Volume TSS Ash DOM Ash Fraction EC pH (mm) (mL) (mg L"1) (%) (dS m"1) PL Feb. 14/06 554.2 3 2125 900 500 400 56 44 1.2 7.4 YTC/PL Feb. 14/06 554.2 1 2755 1250 750 500 60 40 1.5 7.4 YTC/PL Feb. 14/06 554.2 2 2490 1500 750 750 50 50 1.7 7.4 YTC/PL Feb. 14/06 554.2 3 2405 1500 750 750 50 50 2.1 7.5 PL/YTC Feb. 14/06 554.2 1 2650 1750 750 1000 43 57 2.8 7.5 PL/YTC Feb. 14/06 554.2 2 2560 2000 1000 1000 50 50 2.7 7.5 PL/YTC Feb. 14/06 554.2 3 2610 2250 1000 1250 44 56 3.3 7.5 YTC/PL/YTC Feb. 14/06 554.2 1 3045 3500 1750 1750 50 50 4.5 7.5 YTC/PL/YTC Feb. 14/06 554.2 2 3000 2500 1250 1250 50 50 3.6 7.3 YTC/PL/YTC Feb. 14/06 554.2 3 3005 3500 2000 1500 57 43 4.7 7.6 YTC Mar. 15/06 628.6 1 3520 700 400 300 57 43 0.8 7.0 YTC Mar. 15/06 628.6 2 3575 800 500 300 63 38 0.7 7.2 YTC Mar. 15/06 628.6 3 3720 600 500 100 67 33 0.6 7.5 PL Mar. 15/06 628.6 1 3385 1100 500 600 45 55 1.0 7.8 PL Mar. 15/06 628.6 2 2972 1100 500 600 45 55 1.2 8.0 PL Mar. 15/06 628.6 3 3178.5 1100 500 600 45 55 7.9 YTC/PL Mar. 15/06 628.6 1 3925 1400 800 600 57 43 1.9 7.7 YTC/PL Mar. 15/06 628.6 2 3880 1500 800 700 53 47 1.8 7.2 YTC/PL Mar. 15/06 628.6 3 3325 1400 700 700 50 50 1.8 8.0 PL/YTC Mar. 15/06 628.6 1 3745 1750 1000 750 57 43 2.6 7.4 PL/YTC Mar. 15/06 628.6 2 3990 2000 500 1500 25 75 2.4 7.3 PL/YTC Mar. 15/06 628.6 3 ' 3867.0 2000 750 1250 38 63 2.5 7.2 YTC/PL/YTC Mar. 15/06 628.6 1 3805 3000 1500 1500 50 50 4.0 8.0 YTC/PL/YTC Mar. 15/06 628.6 2 3590 2250 1000 1250 44 56 3.5 7.4 YTC/PL/YTC Mar. 15/06 628.6 3 3697.5 3250 1500 1750 46 54 4.4 8.1 YTC April 5/06 656.6 1 2160 545 181.8 363.2 33 67 0.7 7.4 YTC April 5/06 656.6 2 2195 700 300 400 43 57 0.6 7.0 YTC April 5/06 656.6 3 2275 500 200 300 40 60 0.5 8.0 PL April 5/06 656.6 1 2243 1200 400 800 33 67 1.4 7.7 PL April 5/06 656.6 2 1618 1200 400 800 33 67 1.6 8.0 VO VO Treatment Sample Leachate Volatile Name Date Precipitation Replicate Volume TSS Ash DOM Ash Fraction EC PH (mm) (mL) (mg L"1) (%) (dS m"1) PL April 5/06 656.6 3 2260 1000 200 800 20 80 1.2 7.8 YTC/PL April 5/06 656.6 1 2615 1200 700 500 58 42 1.4 7.7 YTC/PL April 5/06 656.6 2 2610 1500 900 600 60 40 1.8 7.2 YTC/PL April 5/06 656.6 3 2155 1600 700 900 44 56 2.0 7.6 PL/YTC April 5/06 656.6 1 2630 2750 1000 1750 36 64 2.9 6.9 PL/YTC April 5/06 656.6 2 2675 2000 1000 1000 50 50 2.4 6.5 PL/YTC April 5/06 656.6 3 2727 2500 1250 1250 50 50 2.9 6.6 YTC/PL/YTC April 5/06 656.6 1 2652 3500 2250 1250 64 36 4.4 7.6 YTC/PL/YTC April 5/06 656.6 2 2670 2250 1250 1000 56 44 3.8 7.4 YTC/PL/YTC April 5/06 656.6 3 2950 3250 2250 1000 69 31 4.4 7.2 Numbers in orange were averaged due to mis.Mng data (.ic. leaked columns, lost samples) or anomalous values. Table C.2 Concentrations of nutrients in leachates. Treatment Sample Total Nitrate Nitrite Ammonium Kjedahl Organic Diss. Ortho- Total TOC COD BOD Name Date N N N P P P (mg L-1) YTC Nov-15 752 0 4 252 497 8.0 6.0 34.1 2650 10400 1910 YTC Nov-15 YTC Nov-15 YTC Dec-05 593 0 0 176 590 417 7.8 5.0 24.6 YTC Dec-05 574 0 0 159 570 415 7.0 5.0 22.7 YTC Dec-05 501 0 0 156 500 345 5.7 5.0 22.4 PL Dec-05 5190 0 0 2720 5200 2470 497 429 6150 15700 3800 PL Dec-05 PL Dec-05 YTC Dec-20 415 0 1.2 83 410 331 5.3 4.0 YTC Dec-20 401 0 1 61 400 340 4.9 3.7 YTC Dec-20 397 0 1 400 .... 324 7.9 6.4 YTC/PL Dec-20 4480 0.14 2.3 115 4500 4360 79.0 78.9 330 2980 21900 2710 o o Treatment Name Sample Date Total Nitrate Nitrite Ammonium Kjedahl N N Organic Diss. Ortho- Total N P P P TOC COD BOD (mg L-1) YTC/PL YTC/PL PL/YTC PL/YTC PL/YTC YTC/PL/YTC YTC/PL/YTC YTC/PL/YTC YTC YTC YTC PL PL PL YTC/PL YTC/PL YTC/PL PL/YTC PL/YTC PL/YTC YTC/PL/YTC YTC/PL/YTC YTC/PL/YTC YTC YTC YTC PL PL PL YTC/PL Dec-20 Dec-20 Dec-20 Dec-20 Dec-20 Dec-20 Dec-20 Dec-20 Jan 3/4 Jan 3/4 Jan 3/4 Jan 3/4 Jan 3/4 Jan 3/4 Jan 3/4 Jan 3/4 Jan 3/4 Jan 3/4 Jan 3/4 Jan 3/4 Jan 3/4 Jan 3/4 Jan 3/4 Jan 11/06 Jan 11/06 Jan 11/06 Jan 11/06 Jan 11/06 Jan 11/06 Jan 11/06 833 2810 1.3 148 365 830 2800 686 2450 7.7 5.3 3.5 1.5 41.4 49.6 155 0.42 2.2 113 150 40 14.7 12.8 18 158 0.51 2.2 111 160 44 _ j 14.5 11.8 18 205 0.57 2.2 109 200 94 * 18.4 15.0 18 3250 0.82 3.1 2500 3200 745 365 345 342 2640 0.66 2.6 1780 4100 857 317 283 342 2030 0.42 2.4 1530 2000 502 246 241 342 3660 0.41 3 1990 3700 1670 308 263 323 2880 0 2.6 2190 2900 687 339 305 , 323 3030 0.46 2.5 2090 3000 937 246 159 323 0.6 2.6 1 160 2900 597 42.7 19.9 '. 47 1660 0.21 2.6 1485 1700 172 32.5 22.1 • 47 1860 0.09 2.6 1810 1900 47 29.4 16.5 47 1680 1.32 2.3 1090 1700 589 73.0 86.0 76, 2160 0.86 2.8 1570 2200 587 77.0 58.0 76 1940 1.32 2.2 1079 1900 868 37.1 24.8 76 116 0 0.7 92 120 25 14 15.6 17 109 0 0.5 106 110 2 13 14.5 16 81 4.76 0 83 76 0 15 16.1 18 872 0 0.7 808 650 63 153 157 181 890 0 0.9 827 890 63 164 159 190 854 0 0.7 789 850 65 179 173 201 827 0 1 772 830 56 151 147 184 1940 7810 426 2460 17200 1430 Treatment Sample Total Nitrate Nitrite Ammonium Kjedahl Organic Diss. Ortho- Total TOC COD BOD Name Date N N N P P P (mq L/1) YTC/PL Jan 11/06 581 0 0.8 412 580 168 164 152 187 YTC/PL Jan 11/06 1410 0 1.4 1040 1400 367 218 202 253 PL/YTC Jan 11/06 1280 0 1.1 1090 1300 197 141 135 154 PL/YTC Jan 11/06 1400 0 1.1 1012 K00 387 125 117 140 PL/YTC Jan 11/06 1520 0 1.1 935 1500 583 108 98 125 YTC/PL/YTC Jan 11/06 1110 0 0.9 924 1100 189 67 39.1 99 YTC/PL/YTC Jan 11/06 1460 0 1.2 1250 1500 207 86 77 120 YTC/PL/YTC Jan 11/06 1440 0 1.2 1100 1400 340 86 79 127 YTC Jan 18/06 38 0 0 31 38 7 13 11.5 14 YTC Jan 18/06 48 0 0 35 48 13 12 10.9 12 YTC Jan 18/06 45 0 0 33 45 12 14 13.1 15 PL Jan 18/06 225 0 0 194 230 32 131 115 133 PL Jan 18/06 251 0 0 218 250 34 105 95 113 PL Jan 18/06 223 0 0 184 220 39 127 115 131 YTC/PL Jan 18/06 445 0 0 335 450 110 153 130 151 YTC/PL Jan 18/06 317 0 0 240 320 77 150 129 154 YTC/PL Jan 18/06 599 0 0 455 600 145 163 148 181 PL/YTC Jan 18/06 803 0 0 548 800 256 200 192 224 PL/YTC Jan 18/06 628 0 0 485 630 143 276 262 276 PL/YTC Jan 18/06 762 0 0.8 604 760 158 202 192 215 YTC/PL/YTC Jan 18/06 846 0 0 740 850 106 113 101 142 YTC/PL/YTC Jan 18/06 1130 0 0.8 970 1100 155 149 136 172 YTC/PL/YTC Jan 18/06 987 0 0.7 920 990 67 175 163 185 YTC Feb. 1/06 47 5.45 3.1 18 39 21 8 8.3 8.1 YTC Feb. 1/06 43 2.73 1.1 33 39 6 8.8 8.8 8.6 YTC Feb. 1/06 36 0 0.7 28 36 8 9.8 10 9.8 PL Feb. 1/06 153 0 0 116 150 37 98 98 93 PL Feb. 1/06 182 0 0 138 180 44 68 75 70 PL Feb. 1/06 190 0 0 107 6 83 91 90 90 YTC/PL Feb. 1/06 232 0 0 163 230 69 93 91 127 o Treatment Sample Total Nitrate Nitrite Ammonium Kjedahl Organic Diss. Ortho- Total TOC COD BOD Name Date N N N P P P YTC/PL Feb. 1/06 223 0 0 143 220 80 87 69 102 YTC/PL Feb. 1/06 295 0 0 229 300 67 96 82 98 PL/YTC Feb. 1/06 515 0 0.6 438 350 76 142 148 130 PL/YTC Feb. 1/06 468 0 0.6 401 470 67 154 168 162 PL/YTC Feb. 1/06 561 0 0.7 474 560 87 146 156 143 YTC/PL/YTC Feb. 1/06 601 0 0.7 500 600 101 92 98 95 YTC/PL/YTC Feb. 1/06 690 0 0.8 532 690 158 151 167 156 YTC/PL/YTC Feb. 1/06 783 0 0.7 676 780 108 155 162 151 YTC Feb. 14/06 62 9.3 0 17 52 35 7.1 7.1 7.5 YTC Feb. 14/06 50 3.4 0 25 47 22 8.6 8.3 13.5 YTC Feb. 14/06 41 0 0 25 41 16 9.1 9.2 10.2 PL Feb. 14/06 149 0 0 138 150 11 108 91 116 PL Feb. 14/06 174 0 0 148 170 26 86 69 80 PL Feb. 14/06 136 0 0 116 140 21 98 81 136 YTC/PL Feb. 14/06 171 0 0 153 170 18 109 52 89 YTC/PL Feb. 14/06 187 0 0 166 190 21 76 42.1 98 YTC/PL Feb. 14/06 246 0 0 223 250 24 83 57 96 PL/YTC Feb. 14/06 428 0 0 376 430 52 138 142 137 PL/YTC Feb. 14/06 414 2.07 0 361 410 51 132 132 135 PL/YTC Feb. 14/06 481 0 0 432 480 49 163 162 165 YTC/PL/YTC Feb. 14/06 594 0 0 482 590 112 90 81 107 YTC/PL/YTC Feb. 14/06 476 0 0 435 480 41 230 127 299 YTC/PL/YTC Feb. 14/06 670 0 0 577 670 93 154 141 194 YTC Mar. 15/06 98 83.4 0 1.1 14 13 7 6.2 7.4 YTC Mar. 15/06 111 78.8 0 3.2 32 29 7.9 6.9 7.6 YTC Mar. 15/06 50 35.5 0 0.0 14 14 7.5 6.7 6.1 PL Mar. 15/06 173 0 0 96 170 77 47.2 39.4 44 PL Mar. 15/06 226 0 0 146 230 80 48.3 39.7 46.2 PL Mar. 15/06 200 IIIB flBHi 121 lUiiBB 79 0 39.6 45.1 YTC/PL Mar. 15/06 254 0 0 165 250 90 49.3 33 46.5 o Treatment Sample Total Nitrate Nitrite Ammonium Kjedahl Organic Diss. Ortho- Total TOC COD BOD Name Date N N N P P P (mg L"1) YTC/PL Mar 15/06 146 0 0 120 150 26 71 68 87 YTC/PL Mar. 15/06 280 0 0 180 280 100 32.2 20.5 31.2 PL/YTC Mar. 15/06 513 28.4 46 313 440 126 113 102 105 PL/YTC Mar. 15/06 497 46.2 50 264 400 137 120 137 116 PL/YTC Mar. 15/06 416 32.5 48 262 260 74 147 135 145 YTC/PL/YTC Mar. 15/06 486 6.46 1.2 449 480 30 41.3 40.2 40.9 YTC/PL/YTC Mar. 15/06 549 6.61 0.8 415 380 127 99 85 105 YTC/PL/YTC Mar. 15/06 612 49.3 37.6 498 520 27 105 90 97 YTC Apr I 5/06 67 55.3 0 1.2 12 11 5.6 5.7 5.7 YTC Apr I 5/06 70 52.3 0 0.9 18 17 7.1 8 7.1 YTC Apr I 5/06 19 2.98 0 1.0 16 15 6 5.2 5.9 PL Apr I 5/06 199 0 0 137 200 62 34.1 36.9 35.6 PL Apr I 5/06 221 0 0 171 220 50 38.4 40.7 39.3 PL Apr I 5/06 196 0 0.7 118 200 78 28.9 31.6 29.6 YTC/PL Apr I 5/06 132 0 0 85 130 47 41.3 41.3 47.9 YTC/PL Apn I 5/06 147 0 0 80 150 68 67 47.9 106 YTC/PL Apri I 5/06 142 0 0 137 140 6 36.2 28.5 51 PL/YTC Apri I 5/06 473 53.5 162 217 260 41 112 139 139 PL/YTC Apri I 5/06 420 66.8 173 168 180 13 101 111 98 PL/YTC Apri I 5/06 493 57.2 197 203 240 36 163 178 163 YTC/PL/YTC Apri I 5/06 548 22.4 1.8 412 520 112 42 36.8 53 YTC/PL/YTC Apri I 5/06 585 29.6 0.9 414 550 141 61 52 85 YTC/PL/YTC Apri I 5/06 753 160 219 308 370 66 105 122 126 Data was averaged due to missing sample points (ie. leaked columns, lost samples) or anomalous values. Data was extrapolated (using previous and subsequent data) due to missed analysis by Maxxam Analytics. o Table C.3 Concentrations of metals in leachates. Treatment Sample Name Date K Na Ca Mg S Fe Cu Zn Mn B Mo Ni (mg L'1) YTC 15-Nov-05 4220 168 505 228 183 10.4 0.4 1.6 2.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 PL 5-Dec-05 5340 1010 57 5 1070 21.6 25.2 10.5 1.2 3.1 0.9 0.8 YTC/PL 20-Dec-05 4910 757 67 7 749 17.6 17.0 7.1 1.3 2.5 0.7 0.6 PL/YTC 20-Dec-05 4270 218 560 260 349 4.1 1.3 1.0 1.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 YTC/PL/YTC 20-Dec-05 4820 489 485 192 561 10.9 5.7 2.2 1.9 0.7 0.2 0.4 YTC 3-Jan-06 1020 33 91 38 14 2.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 0 0 PL 3-Jan-06 2300 456 63 4 383 5.8 5.1 3.0 0.4 2.0 0.2 0.3 YTC/PL 3-Jan-06 2730 414 93 8 300 5.5 3.6 2.7 0.7 2.0 0.2 0.2 PL/YTC 3-Jan-06 3370 343 341 117 334 5.3 2.2 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.2 YTC/PL/YTC 3-Jan-06 3410 342 213 66 286 5.2 1.5 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.2 YTC 11-Jan-06 343 8 30 13 3 1.3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0 PL 11-Jan-06 554 118 43 5 67 2.3 2.7 0.9 5.0 1.2 0.1 0.1 YTC/PL 11-Jan-06 1080 146 66 11 111 4.4 3.8 1.6 11.2 1.1 0.1 0.1 PL/YTC 11-Jan-06 1650 259 121 14 198 8.3 2.2 0.9 14.0 0.6 0.2 0.2 YTC/PL/YTC 11-Jan-06 2260 239 181 13 219 5.7 1.7 0.8 13.1 0.8 0.1 0.2 YTC 18-Jan-06 237 4.8 28 12 2 0.7 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 0 PL 18-Jan-06 114 30 35 0.18 10 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.6 0 0 YTC/PL 18-Jan-06 562 61 55 0.37 37 2.4 1.9 0.8 0.4 0.9 0.1 0 PL/YTC 18-Jan-06 701 111 55 0.43 60 5.4 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.2 0 YTC/PL/YTC 18-Jan-06 1490 166 113 0.54 123 5.6 1.1 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.2 YTC 1-Feb-06 198 2 41.7 18.9 2 0.4 0 0 0.1 0.3 0 0 PL 1-Feb-06 97 20.4 36.9 28.2 6 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.4 0 0 YTC/PL 1-Feb-06 321 25.6 67.8 40.6 12 1.3 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.6 0 0 PL/YTC 1-Feb-06 394 63.8 45 9.9 30 4.3 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.8 0 0 YTC/PL/YTC 1-Feb-06. 842 88.7 70.6 16.7 54 4.8 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.8 0 0 YTC 14-Feb-06 160 1.7 52.5 23.3 2 0.3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0 PL 14-Feb-06 79 14.9 41.1 27 5 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 0 0 YTC/PL 14-Feb-06 236 12.8 76.7 31.6 7 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.5 0 0 o Treatment Sample Name Date K Na Ca Mg S Fe Cu Zn Mn B Mo Ni (mg L'1) PL/YTC 14-Feb-06 343 53.5 43.2 13.5 20 3.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.8 0 0 YTC/PL/YTC 14-Feb-06 704 69.7 73.8 20 44 4.8 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.1 0 Concentrations of cadmium, selenium, and lead were below the detection limits for all samples for each sampling date. Table C.4 Macro and micro nutrient concentrations of initial YTC packed into columns and YTC layers after leaching. Treatment Rep Ash Total C _ _ Tn+al PH EC (dS m"1) NH4-N N03- Bray-N PT N P K Ca Mg Cu Zn Fe Mn S Na (%) (mg kg"1) (%) (mg kg"1) (%) YTC 1 44 24.7 72 143 1333 2.21 0.36 0.31 1.90 0.25 50 185 8061 294 0.27 0.13 6.4 0.37 YTC 2 41 26.8 68 100 1641 2.28 0.34 0.29 1.84 0.26 55 195 8894 271 0.25 0.15 6.4 0.32 YTC 3 44 28.7 68 49 1436 1.91 0.30 0.29 1.98 0.26 67 191 9574 245 0.26 0.16 6.4 0.28 YPL - Yc 1 42 25.9 84 103 1231 2.04 0.35 0.20 1.67 0.38 52 171 10042 262 0.23 0.13 6.6 0.36 YPL - Yc 2 37 27.2 80 103 1415 2.05 0.35 0.22 1.68 0.31 45 163 8193 273 0.19 0.16 6.6 0.32 YPL-Yc 3 43 23.9 72 104 1600 2.08 0.34 0.24 1.60 0.37 43 154 8849 267 0.19 0.16 6.6 0.38 PLY - Yp 1 45 25.7 792 227 2769 2.22 0.47 0.37 1.53 0.32 95 179 7260 266 0.22 0.18 6.4 1.25 PLY - Yp 2 48 24.3 408 218 3323 2.06 0.41 0.38 1.58 0.46 93 192 8966 253 0.24 0.19 6.2 1.1 PLY - Yp 3 38 31.3 376 209 3323 2.06 0.45 0.36 1.69 0.30 98 194 7911 285 0.21 0.18 6.2 1.0 S- Yc 1 46 30.3 96 166 1231 2.06 0.35 0.33 1.69 0.28 50 182 7219 282 0.25 0.13 6.6 0.43 S-Yc 2 38 29.9 144 118 2031 2.00 0.37 0.32 1.82 0.34 54 174 8654 267 0.18 0.17 6.5 0.38 S-Yc 3 40 26.9 152 132 1785 1.83 0.31 0.30 1.69 0.32 49 154 8157 265 0.17 0.14 6.5 0.37 S-Yp 1 42 30.7 1204 310 2892 2.33 0.54 0.66 1.69 0.37 116 204 7189 300 0.22 0.23 7.2 2.0 S-Yp 2 43 26.6 728 311 3077 1.98 0.45 0.44 2.00 0.38 100 176 9912 295 0.19 0.17 6.5 1.6 S-Yp 3 44 31.4 496 279 3323 1.99 0.43 0.56 1.54 0.41 99 168 8422 254 0.26 0.17 6.4 1.3 Initial 1 43.2 27.00 1300 276 1436 1.91 0.32 1.20 1.90 0.32 51 202 10851 277 0.23 0.09 7.2 2.8 Initial 2 41.8 28.30 1400 300 1436 2.60 0.33 1.35 1.85 0.28 48 174 8785 282 0.26 0.09 7.0 3.0 Initial 3 45.6 24.66 1200 300 1436 1.85 0.30 1.20 1.75 0.27 44 182 9957 278 0.23 0.09 7.1 2.8 Initial 4 49.9 25.18 1100 303 1641 1.90 0.29 1.06 1.83 0.24 44 190 9725 275 0.24 0.10 7.1 2.8 *Yp = YTC base pad, Yc = YTC cover o 0\ Table C.5 Macro and micro nutrient concentrations of initial PL packed into columns and PL layers after leaching. Treatment Rep Ash % Total C % • Available N03-N pH EC (dS m"1) NH4-N Bray-Pi N P K Ca Mg Cu Zn Fe Mn S Na (mg kg-1) (%) (mg kg"1) PL 1 20 36.9 1400 91 10769 2.49 2.41 0.15 4.93 0.61 443 709 1774 798 0.34 0.07 7.1 1.1 PL 2 16 36.8 1200 148 11077 2.43 2.44 0.17 4.92 0.55 470 660 1566 716 0.32 0.17 7.0 1.3 PL 3 17 36.3 1040 127 9538 2.51 2.59 0.12 5.08 0.65 513 748 1786 792 0.31 0.06 7.1 1.2 YPL 1 19 37.3 232 345 10460 2.10 2.45 0.19 3.89 0.70 335 529 1944 648 0.25 0.07 6.5 1.5 YPL 2 17 37.2 344 311 10770 2.02 2.27 0.16 4.41 0.66 376 591 2150 667 0.24 0.06 6.7 1.3. YPL 3 18 37.1 240 364 12000 2.10 2.57 0.23 3.66 0.82 334 528 1940 593 0.25 0.06 6.7 1.4 PLY 1 19 36.8 1240 219 10155 2.32 2.76 0.15 3.97 0.68 320 552 1435 607 0.26 0.07 7.3 1.4 PLY 2 23 35.4 1120 190 10460 2.19 2.28 0.14 3.89 0.73 346 540 3888 583 0.26 0.07 7.1 1.3 PLY 3 17 38.4 1120 150 10155 1.98 1.94 0.10 3.52 0.57 308 527 1319 593 0.33 0.05 7.2 1.3 SPL 1 20 37.4 640 509 11243 2.07 2.94 0.27 4.26 0.73 447 670 1702 755 0.28 0.07 6.8 1.7 SPL 2 16 40.1 408 423 9230 1.75 1.96 0.14 3.60 0.66 350 530 1377 593 0.24 0.05 6.6 1.5 SPL 3 15 39.1 260 426 9846 1.61 1.57 0.12 3.12 0.55 290 473 1290 538 0.23 0.05 6.6 1.4 SDPL 1 18 34.7 3520 421 12310 2.56 2.13 1.68 3.30 0.54 330 469 1173 469 0.46 0.32 7.0 7.5 SDPL 2 19 33.1 3680 379 14460 2.94 2.51 1.63 3.70 0.59 359 490 1307 467 0.53 0.33 6.9 12 Initial 1 19.1 36.0 5400 705 10154 3.64 2.07 1.66 3.30 0.46 375 463 1104 441 0.59 0.35 7.1 12 Initial 2 17.4 34.8 5000 721 9846 3.64 2.24 1.66 3.49 0.51 364 475 1214 419 0.38 0.31 7.2 12 Initial 3 15.5 36.3 4800 745 10461 3.22 2.06 1.65 3.60 0.46 396 451 1101 440 0.54 0.33 7.2 12 Initial 4 13.9 35.8 4600 658 11077 3.47 2.39 1.78 3.89 0.53 407 496 1211 451 0.50 0.33 7.1 12 Appendix D: Sampling Field Piles Figure D.l Photograph of excavator cut made for sampling at Pile 1 in the YTC covered section. The three pegs marked with flagging tape indicate the dry core, wet middle, and wet edge samples. Two such excavator cuts were made in each treatment at each pile. Figure D.2 Sampling spots in the wet outer region of the YTC covered section of Pile 1. Samples were collected from the YTC base pad, wet poultry litter, and YTC cover. Scale: each black bar is 10 cm long. 108 Figure D.3 Sampling spots from the dry core of Pile 1. Samples were collected from the YTC base pad, dry poultry litter, and wet poultry litter above. Scale: each black bar represents 10 cm. 109 Appendix E: Field Study Soil Data Table E.l Macro and micro nutrients concentrations of soils collected under and around field piles. Total N03- Available Sample ID* Depth NH4-N N N P K Ca Mg Na Cu Zn Fe Mn so-s (mg kg1) S1 1-C-0-1 0-15cm 246.7 6.4 253.1 123 775 1350 420 60 7.3 13.0 600 42 28 S2 1-C-0-1 15-30cm 170.4 0.0 170.4 87 360 1300 395 65 3.8 5.0 700 26 13 S3 1-C-0-2 0-15cm 48.4 13.3 61.6 195 740 1300 375 55 4.1 14.0 255 28 20 S4 1-C-0-2 15-30cm 8.6 12.7 21.2 103 390 1250 405 40 2.6 8.0 275 16 19 S5 1-C-0-3 0-15cm 226.6 0.2 226.8 113 420 1300 415 60 3.4 8.5 350 30 38 S6 1-C-0-3 15-30cm 170.4 0.0 170.4 179 740 1350 445 65 4.7 13.5 310 37 56 S7 1-C-2-1 0-15cm 3.4 7.4 10.8 210 700 1400 385 35 3.7 15.5 260 32 7.1 S8 1-C-2-1 15-30cm 5.7 8.6 14.3 103 400 1350 375 40 2.2 8.0 290 18 6.8 S9 1-C-2-2 0-15cm 5.0 4.3 9.2 200 720 1400 390 30 5.5 16.5 280 37 5 S10 1-C-2-2 15-30cm 12.0 2.3 14.4 103 420 1200 360 35 2.9 10.0 310 22 13 S11 1-C-2-3 0-15cm 39.3 4.5 43.8 210 640 1850 400 40 2.4 15.5 125 31 8.9 S12 1-C-2-3 15-30cm 5.5 1.6 7.1 92 370 1400 440 50 2.8 8.5 245 19 15 S13 1-C-5-1 0-15cm 3.5 6.8 10.3 185 580 1350 375 40 4.6 14.5 280 27 15 S14 1-C-5-1 15-30cm 3.9 5.3 9.2 97 410 1300 370 35 2.6 7.5 305 13 13.9 S15 1-C-5-2 0-15cm 3.1 15.8 18.9 190 660 1350 405 40 5.5 12.0 355 25 29 S16 1-C-5-2 15-30cm 3.2 17.6 20.8 97 370 1250 410 40 2.3 7.5 295 14 45 S17 1-C-5-3 0-15cm 2.7 16.4 19.1 215 630 1050 290 25 7.6 16.5 300 33 23 S18 1-C-5-3 15-30cm 2.3 19.6 21.9 87 395 1200 430 40 2.6 7.0 285 14 32 S19 1-U-0-1 0-15cm 3.5 7.2 10.7 215 570 1150 305 25 3.9 19.0 300 30 9.3 S20 1-U-0-1 15-30cm 3.7 6.7 10.4 246 755 1250 350 35 4.7 20.0 310 29 17 S21 1-U-0-2 0-15cm 5.4 4.3 9.7 210 680 1350 380 30 5.3 16.5 340 34 8.5 S22 1-U-0-2 15-30cm 75.3 2.4 77.7 179 810 1350 400 40 6.8 17.0 405 41 19 S23 1-U-0-3 0-15cm 2.6 20.8 23.4 200 650 1300 360 30 3.8 16.0 345 26 14 S24 1-U-0-3 15-30cm 6.7 34.0 40.7 200 790 1300 400 50 5.6 19.0 260 35 45 S25 1-U-2-1 0-15cm 179.8 0.9 180.7 149 640 1350 435 55 8.0 14.0 600 48 36 S26 1-U-2-1 15-30cm 154.5 0 154.5 67 490 1150 405 55 3.8 5.0 600 31 14 Total N03- Available Sample ID* Depth NH4-N N N S27 1-U-2-2 0-15cm 161.1 1.0 162.1 S28 1-U-2-2 15-30cm 174.9 0 174.9 S29 1-U-2-3 0-15cm 141.9 0.1 142.0 S30 1-U-2-3 15-30cm 41.0 0 41.0 S31 1-U -5-1 0-15cm 2.1 9.4 11.5 S32 1-U -5-1 15-30cm 1.2 9.0 10.2 S34 1-U -5-2 0-15cm 1.9 6.4 8.3 S35 1-U -5-2 15-30cm 0.9 12.4 13.3 S36 1-U -5-3 0-15cm 43.7 2.0 45.7 S37 1-U -5-3 15-30cm 18.7 1.0 19.7 S38 1-CE-1 0-15cm 944.1 0 944.1 S39 1-CE-1 15-30cm 286.5 0 286.5 S40 1-CE-1 30-60cm 60.8 0 60.8 S41 1-CE-2 0-15cm 193.7 0 193.7 S42 1-CE-2 15-30cm 140.8 0 140.8 S43 1-CE-2 30-60cm 14.1 0 14.1 S44 1-CE-3 0-15cm 166.8 0 166.8 S45 1-CE-3 15-30cm 78.7 0 78.7 S46 1-CE-3 30-60cm 26.9 0 26.9 S47 1-Cin-1 0-15cm 1115.9 0 1115.9 S48 1-Cin-1 15-30cm 242.0 0 242.0 S49 1-Cin-2 0-15cm 1601.2 0 1601.2 S50 1-Cin-2 15-30cm 310.6 0 310.6 S51 1-Cin-3 0-15cm 2216.3 0.7 2217.0 S52 1-Cin-3 15-30cm 288.1 0 288.1 S53 1-CC-1 0-15cm 258.3 0 258.3 S54 1-CC-1 15-30cm 177.9 0 177.9 S55 1-CC-2 0-15cm 274.1 0 274.1 S56 1-CC-2 15-30cm 172.0 0 172.0 P K Ca Mg Na Cu Zn Fe Mn SO-(mg kg1) 190 705 1350 430 45 4.6 15.5 355 43 16 113 730 1150 380 75 6.7 13.0 600 39 21 210 1200 1300 420 70 5.5 19.5 330 42 38 164 820 1300 425 75 3.7 17.0 340 31 50 152 725 1250 385 60 4.5 15.0 255 27 45 52 410 1150 455 75 2.3 6.0 275 11 69 110 875 1200 345 60 3.2 11.0 385 20 12 43 580 1100 445 90 2.0 5.0 330 9 15 171 1110 1200 365 75 6.2 19.0 410 33 33 176 790 1200 345 80 4.4 14.5 400 26 54 154 600 1150 365 285 10.5 12.5 650 42 68 87 730 1150 430 100 5.2 7.0 700 31 14 26 285 1550 875 95 3.5 8.0 265 20 22 169 780 1400 415 175 6.7 13.5 345 41 28 67 550 1350 520 115 2.7 5.5 425 26 37 16 190 1200 910 115 4.1 4.5 280 16 39 174 1500 1350 460 135 4.7 13.5 335 41 52 92 450 1350 565 100 2.8 7.5 295 25 48 14 230 1100 940 125 5.4 4.5 310 19 45 97 2600 1500 560 380 2.5 11.5 750 44 57 67 425 1200 470 100 3.8 5.5 800 30 13 144 535 1050 360 340 5.1 16.0 750 50 52 87 705 1200 435 100 5.6 8.0 650 41 13 128 2300 1300 310 360 4.7 15.5 650 49 57 87 615 1150 410 80 6.2 9.0 650 41 13 113 970 1300 485 60 5.4 10.5 500 44 20 77 350 1250 450 45 4.1 6.5 500 34 10 113 1000 1350 480 60 7.1 12.5 550 50 24 34 380 1250 410 50 6.1 8.0 600 41 11 Total N03- Available Sample ID* Depth NH4-N N N S57 1-CC-3 0-15cm 314.7 0 314.7 S58 1-CC-3 15-30cm 200.0 0 200.0 S59 1-UE-1 0-15cm 372.2 0 372.2 S60 1-UE-1 15-30cm 220.0 0 220.0 S61 1-UE-1 30-60cm 11.5 0 11.5 S62 1-UE-2 0-15cm 1026.6 0 1026.6 S63 1-UE-2 15-30cm 489.3 0 489.3 S64 1-UE-2 30-60cm 51.3 0 51.3 S65 1-UE-3 0-15cm 259.5 0 259.5 S66 1-UE-3 15-30cm 229.0 0 229.0 S67 1-UE-3 30-60cm 42.3 0 42.3 S68 1-Uin-1 0-15cm 533.0 0 533.0 S69 1-Uin-1 15-30cm 156.4 0 156.4 S70 1-Uin-2 0-15cm 815.6 0 815.6 S71 1-Uin-2 15-30cm 192.6 0 192.6 S72 1-Uin-3 0-15cm 1898.2 0 1898.2 S73 1-Uin-3 15-30cm 334.2 0 334.2 S74 1-UC-1 0-15cm 261.2 0 261.2 S75 1-UC-1 15-30cm 157.4 0 157.4 S76 1-UC-2 0-15cm 263.6 0 263.6 S77 1-UC-2 15-30cm 148.8 0 148.8 S78 1-UC-3 0-15cm 278.8 0 278.8 S79 1-UC-3 15-30cm 123.8 0 123.8 S80 2-C-0-1 0-15cm 44.5 56.0 100.4 S81 2-C-0-1 15-30cm 110.8 20.9 131.7 S82 2-C-0-2 0-15cm 4.8 14.8 19.5 S83 2-C-0-2 15-30cm 4.5 5.6 10.1 S84 2-C-0-3 0-15cm 2.1 7.4 9.5 S85 2-C-0-3 15-30cm 7.3 1.7 9.0 P K Ca Mg Na Cu Zn Fe Mn so-s (mg kg1) 118 1150 1400 485 65 8.0 13.5 550 51 34 97 430 1250 435 50 5.6 8.0 600 40 12 100 1200 1250 425 110 5.3 10.5 465 34 14 48 690 1100 500 135 2.2 3.5 430 16 34 110 1800 1000 285 175 5.4 13.5 575 36 47 74 1000 1075 415 150 3.9 6.8 530 27 37 167 1600 1150 395 110 6.1 17.5 435 37 26 110 900 1050 355 90 6.0 11.5 575 27 20 110 1250 1150 365 105 7.7 12.0 675 38 20 44 525 1150 480 95 4.4 4.2 695 25 9 110 1450 1100 360 125 6.0 14.0 675 41 17 62 600 1150 410 85 5.2 6.0 750 26 15 152 3050 1100 340 335 6.6 17.5 630 39 68 81 1025 950 470 180 5.8 9.0 650 22 29 124 940 1150 415 80 8.8 10.5 650 36 23 64 415 1150 380 80 12.5 3.3 600 92 12.3 100 1080 1150 370 75 8.7 11.0 690 37 31 56 420 1150 480 95 8.8 5.7 550 32 15.6 110 1060 1150 395 90 9.1 15.0 680 38 35 44 630 1100 500 150 4.5 4.9 550 28 21.3 121 68 121 53 121 63 Total N03- Available Sample ID* Depth NH4-N N N P K Ca Mg Na Cu Zn Fe Mn SO-S S86 2-C-2-1 0-15cm 0.6 24.4 25.0 105 S87 2-C-2-1 15-30cm 1.0 10.6 11.6 42 S88 2-C-2-2 0-15cm 12.8 13.5 26.3 121 S89 2-C-2-2 15-30cm 0.8 21.1 21.8 58 S90 2-C-2-3 0-15cm 38.9 20.3 59.3 116 S91 2-C-2-3 15-30cm 6.1 1.9 8.1 63 S92 2-C-5-1 0-15cm 0.4 9.5 9.9 100 S93 2-C-5-1 15-30cm 0.7 4.9 5.6 53 S94 2-C-5-2 0-15cm 1.1 7.1 8.2 100 S95 2-C-5-2 15-30cm 0.2 6.9 7.1 58 S96 2-C-5-3 0-15cm 1.0 8.8 9.7 105 S97 2-C-5-3 15-30cm 0.3 4.7 5.0 53 S98 2-U-0-1 0-15cm 83.6 51.7 135.2 158 S99 2-U-0-1 15-30cm 41.5 1.6 43.1 84 S100 2-U-0-2 0-15cm 376.3 142.4 518.7 200 S101 2-U-0-2 15-30cm 240.8 3.2 244.0 84 S102 2-U-0-3 0-15cm 395.1 117.5 512.6 126 S103 2-U-0-3 15-30cm 299.4 1.8 301.2 74 S104 2-U-2-1 0-15cm 3.0 5.3 8.2 100 S105 2-U-2-1 15-30cm 0.7 4.0 4.7 63 S106 2-U-2-2 0-15cm 1.6 4.6 6.2 100 S107 2-U-2-2 15-30cm 2.8 1.9 4.7 79 S108 2-U-2-3 0-15cm 2.4 4.5 7.0 110 S109 2-U-2-3 15-30cm 5.5 1.5 7.0 63 S110 2-U-5-1 0-15cm 1.4 5.7 7.1 89 S111 2-U-5-1 15-30cm 0.3 4.0 4.3 74 S112 2-U-5-2 0-15cm 0.6 5.7 6.3 105 S113 2-U-5-2 15-30cm 0.7 3.0 3.6 79 S114 2-U-5-3 0-15cm 0.7 3.7 4.3 100 Total N03- Available Sample ID* Depth NH4-N N N P K Ca Mg Na Cu Zn Fe Mn SO-S S115 2-U-5-3 15-30cm 0.5 0 0.5 84 S116 2-CE-1 0-15cm 928.4 0 928.4 68 S117 2-CE-1 15-30cm 309.8 0 309.8 39 S118 2-CE-1 30-60cm 16.0 0 16.0 S119 2-CE-2 0-15cm 1602.7 0 1602.7 95 S120 2-CE-2 15-30cm 164.8 0 164.8 58 S121 2-CE-2 30-60cm 16.5 0 16.5 S122 2-CE-3 0-15cm 1669.5 0 1669.5 105 S123 2-CE-3 15-30cm 292.6 0 292.6 74 S124 2-CE-3 30-60cm 26.0 0 26.0 S125 2-CC-1 0-15cm 1248.6 0 1248.6 100 S126 2-CC-1 15-30cm 161.7 0 161.7 58 S127 2-CC-2 0-15cm 470.7 0 470.7 84 S128 2-CC-2 15-30cm 58.0 0 58.0 63 S129 2-CC-3 0-15cm 401.9 0 401.9 84 S130 2-CC-3 15-30cm 73.1 0 73.1 58 S131 2-UE-1 0-15cm 2156.1 0 2156.1 142 S132 2-UE-1 15-30cm 486.8 0 486.8 63 S133 2-UE-1 30-60cm 26.0 0 26.0 S134 2-UE-2 0-15cm 873.6 0.3 873.8 121 S135 2-UE-2 15-30cm 176.8 0 176.8 84 S136 2-UE-2 30-60cm 36.0 0 36.0 S137 2-UE-3 0-15cm 2028.3 0 2028.3 137 S138 2-UE-3 15-30cm 201.9 0 201.9 63 S139 2-UE-3 30-60cm 33.0 0 33.0 S140 2-UC-1 0-15cm 2086.4 0 2086.4 100 S141 2-UC-1 15-30cm 142.0 0 142.0 53 S142 2-UC-2 0-15cm 734.5 0 734.5 100 S143 2-UC-2 15-30cm 121.3 0 121.3 74 Total N03- Available Sample ID* Depth NH4-N N N P K Ca Mg Na Cu Zn Fe Mn SO-S (mg kg1) S144 2-UC-3 0-15cm 732.5 0 732.5 84 S145 24JC-3 15-30cm 121.0 0 121.0 63 S146 3-0-1 0-15cm 257.3 10.5 267.8 215 S147 3-0-1 15-30cm 101.1 0 101.1 118 S148 3-0-2 0-15cm 519.3 13.5 532.9 241 S149 3-0-2 15-30cm 44.8 0 44.8 82 S150 3-0-3 0-15cm 216.7 14.5 231.2 246 S151 3-0-3 15-30cm 25.4 0 25.4 62 S152 3-2-1 0-15cm 109.6 0 109.6 185 S153 3-2-1 15-30cm 21.5 0 21.5 67 S154 3-2-2 0-15cm 153.0 0 153.0 300 S155 3-2-2 15-30cm 36.7 0 36.7 82 S156 3-2-3 0-15cm 364.0 29.7 393.8 210 S157 3-2-3 15-30cm 82.7 0 82.7 64 S158 3-5-1 0-15cm 3.8 1.2 5.0 167 315 2000 485 75 3.4 8.5 180 32 32 S159 3-5-1 15-30cm 3.7 0 3.7 114 170 1800 485 75 3.3 7.5 180 28 36 S160 3-5-2 0-15cm 0.6 5.7 6.2 186 290 1950 425 60 3.5 8.5 160 31 17 S161 3-5-2 15-30cm 3.9 0 3.9 114 190 1750 445 70 3.4 7.0 170 28 33 S162 3-5-3 0-15cm 3.6 2.0 5.6 171 305 1750 405 50 3.5 7.5 190 32 11 S163 3-5-3 15-30cm 2.2 0 2.2 62 150 1650 475 55 3.4 6.0 190 24 14 S164 3-E-1 0-15cm 5885.1 0 5885.1 243 2050 1300 390 360 5.6 9.0 690 33 84 S165 3-E-1 15-30cm 368.5 0 368.5 34 360 1400 560 120 5.4 4.5 445 24 10 S166 3-E-1 30-60 cm 60.7 0 60.7 11 145 975 595 90 15.5 4.5 270 13 28 S167 3-E-2 0-15cm 2445.4 0 2445.4 743 3900 900 355 675 4.2 19.0 690 28 185 S168 3-E-2 15-30cm 1406.5 0 1406.5 47 900 1300 555 335 3.5 5.5 480 24 36 S169 3-E-2 30-60 cm 40.6 0 40.6 12 125 1050 680 100 18.0 6.0 335 12 24 S170 3-E-3 0-15cm 4313.6 0 4313.6 357 3100 1200 380 515 4.8 12.0 730 38 101 S171 3-E-3 15-30cm 720.4 0 720.4 37 300 900 300 105 7.7 5.3 680 31 14 S172 3-E-3 30-60 cm 214.8 0 214.8 17 240 1050 560 115 14.5 4.5 300 14 35 Total N03- Available Sample ID* Depth NH4-N N N P K Ca Mg Na Cu Zn Fe Mn SO-(mg kg"1) S173 3-C-1 0-15cm 3407.1 0 3407.1 286 1700 950 215 390 4.6 9.0 760 36 66 S174 3-C-1 15-30cm 221.9 0 221.9 71 345 1400 485 140 5.3 5.5 435 26 21 S175 3-C-2 0-15cm 3917.3 0 3917.3 357 3900 1300 330 760 5.1 11.0 750 39 68 S176 3-C-2 15-30cm 5.6 0 5.6 57 255 950 285 80 5.1 5.5 480 25 13 S177 3-C-3 0-15cm 197.7 0 197.7 200 1800 1350 365 385 6.3 9.2 700 37 31 S178 3-C-3 15-30cm 2094.9 0 2094.9 57 185 1400 425 90 5.6 7.0 485 27 14 S179Z 4-0-1 0-15cm 0 5.7 5.7 272 S180 4-0-1 15-30cm 0 0 0 S181 4-0-2 0-15cm 0.1 1.0 1.1 308 S182 4-0-2 15-30cm 0 0 0 S183 4-0-3 0-15cm 0 5.8 5.8 323 S184 4-0-3 15-30cm 0 0 0 S185 4-2-1 0-15cm 0 1.9 1.9 272 S186 4-2-1 15-30cm 0 0 0 S187 4-2-2 0-15cm 0 0.3 0.3 282 S188 4-2-2 15-30cm 0 0 0 S189 4-2-3 0-15cm 0 0.5 0.5 287 S190 4-2-3 15-30cm 0 0 0 S191 4-5-1 0-15cm 0 0 0 267 S192 4-5-1 15-30cm 0 0 0 S193 4-5-2 0-15cm 0 0.1 0.1 272 S194 4-5-2 15-30cm 0 0 0 S195 4-5-3 0-15cm 0 0.7 0.7 333 S196 4-5-3 15-30cm 0 0 0 S197 4-E-1 0-15cm 1380.8 68.9 1449.7 297 S198 4-E-1 15-30cm 349.4 5.2 354.6 S199 4-E-1 30-60 cm 38.9 0 38.9 S200 4-E-2 0-15cm 699.7 11.0 710.7 554 S201 4-E-2 15-30cm 218.6 2.3 221.0 Total N03- Available Sample ID* Depth NH4-N N N P K Ca Mg Na Cu Zn Fe Mn so-s (mg kg1) S202 4-E-2 30-60 cm 121.0 0 121.0 S203 4-E-3 0-15cm 492.2 0 492.2 226 S204 4-E-3 15-30cm 48.3 0 48.3 S205 4-E-3 30-60 cm 12.7 0 12.7 S206 4-C-1 0-15cm 2002.3 0 2002.3 133 S207 4-C-1 15-30cm 97.8 0 97.8 S208 4-C-2 0-15cm 2787.0 0 2787.0 118 S209 4-C-2 15-30cm 448.2 0 448.2 S210 4-C-3 0-15cm 434.0 0 434.0 144 S211 4-C-3 15-30cm 71.9 0 71.9 S231 Pile 1 Fall 0-15cm 8.0 77.9 85.9 129 320 600 175 50 4.0 5.5 375 9 68 S232 Pile 1 Fall 15-30cm 4.8 0 4.8 71 240 700 200 45 2.5 6.0 285 11 11 S233 Pile 2 fall 0-15cm 5.5 97.3 102.9 124 S234 Pile 2 fall 15-30cm 2.3 0 2.3 65 S235 Pile 3 Fall 0-15cm 11.6 350.2 361.7 181 300 2250 525 95 3.0 9.5 135 33 83 S236 Pile 3 Fall 15-30cm 1.3 0 1.3 86 175 1800 500 90 3.2 7.5 160 26 53 S237 Pile 4 fall 0-15cm 1.5 20.3 21.8 246 S238 Pile 4 fall 15-30cm 0.3 0 0.3 213 * First digit indicates the pile number (1-3). For Piles 1 and 2 the first digit is followed by the letter 'C for YTC covered or 'U' for uncovered. The following letter for all piles indicates 'E' for edge, 'in' for inner, or 'C for core or if it is a number it indicates the distance away from the pile (0 = beside the pile, 2 = 2.5 m and 5 m away). The final number indicates the replicate number (1-3). Eg. l-C-2-2 = Pile 1, covered section, 2.5 m away, replicate number 2 or 3-C-l = Pile 3, core, replicate number 1. zPile 4 is a case study which was not included in the thesis because it was located on a different soil type, it was not a windrow, and was very small. The data have been included here for future reference. Appendix F: Field Study YTC and PL Data Table F. 1 Macro and micro nutrient concentrations of initial YTC sampled in the fall and YTC sampled from various locations within Pile 1 after storage. Available Total -Sample Total NH4- N03- Bray-Location Rep Ash C N N Pi N P K Ca Mg Cu Zn Fe Mn S Na PH EC (mg kg"1) ) kg"1) (dS I %) (%) (°/ m1) 1CPE* 1 57 24 104 363 1108 1.42 0.27 0.49 1.99 0.47 50 165 11216 356 0.17 0.19 6.8 1.1 1CPE 2 57 22 52 251 1477 1.35 0.30 0.49 1.91 0.49 53 159 11464 308 0.11 0.23 6.7 0.8 1CPE 3 53 24 52 697 2277 1.68 0.41 0.59 1.81 0.38 65 186 10000 309 0.27 0.29 5.7 2.6 1CPM* 1 45 27 8800 123 4000 2.72 0.66 1.47 1.07 0.26 50 167 7585 243 0.42 0.58 6.0 15 1CPM 2 46 24 880 57 1231 1.50 0.21 0.81 1.58 0.35 46 155 10210 295 0.20 0.26 7.6 2.4 1CPM 3 50 28 2080 100 1600 1.81 0.33 0.99 1.47 0.33 57 150 9873 284 0.25 0.44 8.0 3.0 1CPC* 1 53 28 456 38 1169 1.50 0.25 0.69 1.58 0.36 45 143 9979 284 0.14 0.21 7.4 1.5 1CPC 2 46 26 700 44 1231 1.57 0.26 0.74 1.68 0.35 49 150 11111 325 0.14 0.22 7.5 1.7 1CPC 3 45 25 544 30 923 1.41 0.18 0.64 1.67 0.31 44 146 11250 302 0.13 0.18 7.4 1.5 1CCM* 1 53 22 536 1261 1169 1.51 0.23 0.40 1.59 0.33 50 144 10312 271 0.14 0.20 5.2 2.7 1CCM 2 42 28 88 491 985 1.51 0.24 0.27 1.80 0.32 52 146 6900 254 0.13 0.18 6.3 0.9 1CCM 3 43 28 768 720 2708 1.82 0.64 0.36 2.32 0.41 90 221 8842 389 0.16 0.22 6.8 1.7 1CCT* 1 57 24 52 183 1292 1.43 0.27 0.38 1.70 0.37 58 177 10616 297 0.12 0.20 6.4 0.5 1CCT 2 42 27 136 920 1046 1.74 0.24 0.35 1.69 0.33 45 145 9408 285 0.19 0.17 5.6 2.1 1CCT 3 44 23 56 507 1108 1.44 0.23 0.32 1.70 0.29 47 144 9382 288 0.13 0.14 6.4 0.8 1UPE* 1 60 21 2200 137 1816 1.64 0.33 0.81 1.57 0.34 67 160 10647 270 0.34 0.15 7.2 2.2 1UPE 2 58 22 2200 114 1492 2.19 0.41 0.81 1.46 0.33 67 170 9081 277 0.30 0.15 7.3 1.9 1UPE 3 44 23 200 1100 1816 1.72 0.41 0.70 1.77 0.31 56 202 7188 318 0.23 0.11 5.6 2.4 1UPM* 1 52 26 4600 194 3438 2.04 0.62 1.20 1.05 0.35 132 212 6618 245 0.36 0.19 6.8 6.5 1UPM 2 54 26 880 94 1427 1.56 0.33 1.00 1.46 0.36 75 147 8437 254 0.25 0.15 7.6 2.4 1UPM 3 53 25 640 220 1038 1.57 0.33 0.89 1.57 0.38 54 158 8873 267 0.25 0.14 7.5 2.4 1UPC* 1 47 29 420 97 1038 1.60 0.27 0.78 1.71 0.35 49 256 8742 288 0.21 0.10 7.3 1.5 1UPC 2 52 24 180 80 973 1.36 0.26 0.74 1.68 0.38 51 161 8613 273 0.18 0.10 7.4 1.3 oo Available Total Sample Location Rep Ash Total C NH4-N N03-N Bray-Pi N P K Ca Mg Cu Zn Fe Mn S Na PH EC (%) (mg kg 1) (%) (mg kg1) (%) (dS m"1) 1UPC 3 56 23 280 89 973 1.51 0.28 0.70 1.48 0.38 42 148 8792 264 0.20 0.10 7.4 1.2 Initial 1 43 27 1300 276 2092 2.21 0.36 1.39 1.69 0.32 41 161 9388 273 0.30 0.09 7.2 2.8 Initial 2 42 28 1400 300 2123 2.31 0.34 1.43 1.59 0.27 37 157 7856 261 0.33 0.09 7.0 3.0 Initial 3 46 25 1200 300 2000 2.22 0.35 1.33 1.58 0.36 56 158 8544 271 0.27 0.09 7.1 2.8 Initial 4 50 25 1100 303 2123 2.12 0.34 1.29 1.47 0.35 38 164 9539 268 0.28 0.10 7.1 2.8 *Sample location codes: 1 indicates Pile 1 for each sample; CPE = YTC covered section, sample collected from the YTC base pad on the edge; CPM = YTC covered section, sample collected from the YTC base pad in the middle; CPC = YTC covered section, sample collected from the YTC base pad under the core of the pile; CCM = YTC covered section, sample collected from the YTC cover in the middle (eg. halfway up the pile); CCT = YTC covered section, sample collected from the YTC cover at the top of the pile; UPE, UPM and UPC indicate the uncovered section YTC base pad samples collected from the edge, middle and core. Table F.2 Macro and micro nutrient concentrations of initial poultry litter sampled in the fall and poultry litter after storage sampled from various locations within Piles 1 and 2. Available Total Sample Location* Rep Ash Total C NH4-N N03-N Bray-P N P K Ca Mg Cu Zn Fe Mn S Na PH EC (%) (mg kg"1) (%) (mg kg"1) (%) (dS m"1) IC^LWB 1 16 40 1360 195 7179 2.93 1.96 0.77 2.61 0.83 326 380 761 511 0.35 0.13 7.2 3.3 IC^LWB 2 15 39 12800 246 7385 4.40 2.21 1.64 2.77 0.63 232 398 885 476 0.50 0.50 6.0 23 IC^LWB 3 15 41 1280 174 7179 3.21 1.81 0.45 3.32 0.48 257 482 1071 610 0.38 0.97 6.9 2.3 1C-PLWT 1 21 33 4160 1487 15385 3.77 2.69 2.19 3.17 0.82 349 524 1092 568 0.65 0.46 6.5 18 IC^LWT 2 27 31 2880 790 13846 3.33 3.37 2.03 6.10 1.16 632 854 1663 976 0.53 0.53 6.5 18 1C-PLWT 3 27 30 4400 1077 14461 3.98 3.81 2.26 3.79 1.15 260 530 1353 530 0.80 0.59 6.5 18 IC^LDC 1 16 38 7120 390 6564 4.35 2.07 1.79 2.64 0.62 327 464 949 475 0.56 0.35 6.2 17 IC^LDC 2 14 41 3560 174 5538 4.79 1.84 1.39 2.34 0.51 191 404 745 404 0.46 0.40 5.6 12 1C-PLDC 3 13 40 3440 157 5641 4.74 1.98 1.44 2.00 0.52 186 337 632 368 0.45 0.43 5.6 11 Available Total Sample Total NH4- N03- Bray-Location* Rep Ash C N N P N P K Ca Mg Cu Zn Fe Mn S Na PH EC (mg kg1) (dS (%) (%) (mg kg") (%) m"1) 1U-PLWB 1 15 45 13300 486 5405 5.87 1.85 2.35 2.13 0.47 302 391 1118 360 0.55 0.34 6.0 24 1U-PLWB 2 14 44 14600 371 5189 5.83 1.75 2.23 2.00 0.45 322 433 889 373 0.58 0.37 6.0 25 1U-PLWB 3 20 42 3200 286 5189 4.38 2.96 1.65 3.96 0.84 396 595 1101 771 0.46 0.31 7.2 5.0 1U-PLWT 1 25 36 1620 1200 15892 3.06 3.96 0.37 5.28 1.08 365 899 1634 1024 0.38 0.10 6.4 3.2 1 U-PLWT 2 24 38 3300 514 13189 3.97 4.36 1.11 4.75 1.19 287 839 1435 1048 0.44 0.28 7.1 4.4 1 U-PLWT 3 24 34 2900 800 11676 3.25 3.25 1.07 4.34 0.86 315 662 1627 792 0.44 0.26 7.0 5.0 1U-PLDC 1 14 43 4100 274 5189 4.77 1.70 1.54 2.37 0.48 313 399 754 431 0.44 0.24 5.5 12 1U-PLDC 2 14 44 3800 231 5405 4.81 1.73 1.60 2.14 0.51 321 406 855 459 0.45 0.27 5.6 11 1U-PLDC 3 15 41 4500 214 6203 5.29 1.90 1.54 2.24 0.51 137 459 962 524 0.43 0.43 5.8 13 1 initial 1 15 38 5000 674 6564 4.89 2.23 1.52 2.28 0.47 174 391 1087 380 0.50 0.42 1 initial 2 14 40 4200 650 5744 5.33 2.21 1.65 2.48 0.44 131 431 754 402 0.40 0.40 1 initial 3 15 39 5000 689 5333 5.13 2.11 1.70 2.46 0.46 24 395 962 406 0.38 0.35 1 initial 4 15 39 3800 639 5744 5.08 2.12 1.50 2.47 0.42 20 387 1075 430 0.43 0.37 2C-PLWT 1 39 33 2880 1895 7400 3.32 2.76 1.56 4.10 0.71 261 410 3024 551 0.50 0.26 7.0 11 2C-PLWT 2 35 31 3120 2905 10600 3.08 2.75 1.40 4.55 0.58 255 411 3571 476 0.48 0.26 6.5 12 2C-PLWT 3 36 33 1920 2810 8400 3.05 2.31 1.83 4.50 0.74 241 375 4176 482 0.57 0.27 6.8 13 2C-PLWB 1 32 36 1840 347 8400 3.30 3.22 1.85 4.52 0.56 237 418 2753 430 0.43 0.40 7.8 6.4 2C-PLWB 2 45 29 1520 421 7400 2.72 2.21 1.12 5.97 0.58 196 426 6077 544 0.46 0.24 7.6 4.8 2C-PLWB 3 45 32 640 1247 8600 2.70 3.10 0.94 11.4 0.73 302 604 2542 720 0.55 0.22 7.5 4.5 2C-PLDC 1 24 37 4720 179 6400 4.03 2.03 1.44 2.85 0.71 212 316 2321 359 0.42 0.30 5.6 12 2C-PLDC 2 26 40 5360 179 5000 3.93 1.89 1.64 4.71 0.47 223 332 1949 396 0.55 0.29 6.0 16 2C-PLDC 3 26 41 5120 200 5800 3.81 1.91 1.60 4.97 0.47 184 346 1857 400 0.56 0.31 6.2 15 2U-PLWT 1 43 31 400 1698 8400 2.10 2.04 0.39 3.50 0.54 243 403 4237 599 0.26 0.11 5.6 3.4 2U-PLWT 2 34 31 880 3076 11400 2.94 3.43 0.38 3.70 0.72 259 490 2288 588 0.27 0.13 5.8 6.5 2U-PLWT 3 40 36 2960 2801 10000 2.47 3.43 0.25 7.01 0.59 313 531 3822 658 0.24 0.10 6.4 5.5 2U-PLWB 1 38 32 2400 274 8800 3.09 2.67 1.69 5.31 0.55 293 542 4664 607 0.37 0.31 6.7 7.0 2U-PLWB 2 25 34 2000 3000 12200 3.27 3.11 1.58 2.55 0.73 238 340 1915 372 0.41 0.35 5.8 15 2U-PLWB 3 20 30 640 642 8800 2.64 2.54 1.07 2.88 0.82 232 341 1706 352 0.46 0.26 7.0 5.5 2U-PLDC 1 25 37 3360 200 6200 4.43 1.87 1.57 3.90 0.89 190 338 3692 380 0.48 0.28 5.2 12 o Available Total Sample Total NH4- N03- Bray-Location* Rep Ash C N N P N P K Ca Mg Cu Zn Fe Mn S Na PH EC (%) (mg kg"1) (%) (mg kg"1) (%) (dS m"1) 2U-PLDC 2 24 40 4080 210 6200 4.49 1.85 1.65 3.78 0.47 187 347 3046 378 0.50 0.32 5.4 15 2U-PLDC 3 19 40 3600 200 5000 4.30 1.96 1.49 2.87 0.49 226 340 1486 372 0.52 0.37 5.6 15 2 initial 1 23 34 4300 600 4780 3.46 1.95 1.64 4.51 0.45 139 333 1502 424 0.51 0.35 2 initial 2 24 34 4900 576 4530 4.03 2.04 1.90 4.73 0.52 172 333 1505 435 0.55 0.34 2 initial 3 29 31 5400 558 4718 3.72 3.00 1.57 5.06 0.51 179 359 2110 485 0.50 0.33 2 initial 4 32 32 4200 689 4513 3.48 1.83 1.46 2.53 0.52 179 295 6118 454 0.41 0.30 *Sample location codes: first number indicates Pile 1 or 2; 'C indicates YTC covered section and 'LP indicates uncovered section; PL indicates poultry litter sample; WB = wet bottom (ie. saturated wet region around bottom of pile); WT = wet top of pile; DC = dry core of pile. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 43 0
China 27 2
Germany 4 5
France 4 0
Azerbaijan 3 0
Italy 2 0
Japan 2 0
City Views Downloads
Washington 26 0
Beijing 19 0
Unknown 12 5
Ashburn 4 0
Shenzhen 4 2
Wilmington 4 0
Phoenix 3 0
Naples 2 0
Canaan 2 0
Hangzhou 2 0
Tokyo 2 0
University Park 1 0
Jay 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101002/manifest

Comment

Related Items