The Rural Voice, 1991-09, Page 60ADVICE
WATER MATTERS:
MILKHOUSE
WASHWATER CAN
POLLUTE STREAMS
This month's focus is on milkhouse
washwater — its problems and solu-
tions. With the pipeline milking system,
dairying has become somewhat easier
for today's farmer. Yet, it has greatly in-
creased the amount of water and chemi-
cals needed to clean milking equipment.
A typical operation produces about 150
gallons of washwater per day. Problems
occur when wastewater is disposed of
through sub -surface drainage to open
ditches, creeks, or streams. About 80
per cent of the diary operations in On-
tario directly discharge from the milk -
house to an open watercourse.
Since phosphate detergents and ac-
ids are used, average washwater(if un-
treated) contains a phosphorus concen-
tration over 1000 times the Ontario
Ministry of the Environment's guide-
lines. This would be equivalent to pour-
ing about 600 boxes of laundry deter-
gent into your local stream each year.
This amount of phosphorus stimulates
excessive algae growth which not only
kills fish, but can release toxins.
Milk solids in the untreated washwa-
ter poses another problem — bacteria.
Large amounts of milk solids in the
washwater act as a growth medium for
bacteria. Tiles can become contami-
nated with disease -causing bacteria and
eventually be transmitted down -stream
to neighbouring herds.
Ontario has legislation in place to
protect streams and water supplies from
milkhouses and milking parlours. Im-
properly disposed wastewater is consid-
ered a contaminant or pollutant. With
this in mind, a proper storage and dis-
posal system for milkhouse washwater
is a necessity for the smooth running of
the farm and the health of water sources.
What system would be best to prop-
erly handle your milkhousewashwater?
The right choice for you depends on
what type of operation you run. A liquid
manure storage tank can simply and
inexpensively add the washwater to this
type of storage facility. Storage for
56 THE RURAL VOICE
200+ days for pits or tanks is suggested.
For farmers without a liquid storage
tank, pit system or septic tank/treatment
trench could be an ideal solution. The
pit system would collect washwater in
an earthen pit or a concrete tank, and
later spread on the land. For a proper pit
seal, a clay liner (minimum 15 per cent
clay content) is needed. The septic tank/
treatment trench works in all soil types.
A few general rules will help to
ensure the system keeps working prop-
erly: don't dump whole milk down the
system; when pre -rinsing, feed the first
rinse to calves rather than putting it
down the septic system and never dis-
pose of large loads of milk (ie. a half or
whole tankful) in the system but spread
it on the surface of the land.
At the present time, the University of
Guelph in co-operation with area dairy
farmers, have developed a "conserva-
tion sink" which claims to save at least
40 per cent hydro, chemicals and water
used in this type of operation. Water
conservation along with the implemen-
tation of proper treatment systems is an
important step in protecting water re-
sources. These improvements will not
only be seen close to the source but
further downstream as part of our com-
mitment to clean water. If you would
like more detailed information, please
refer to the "Envir-Ag Facts" sheets
found at your local Conservation Au-
thority or OMAF office.0
This is another in a series of articles
by Janette Smiderle of the Saugeen
Valley Conservation Authority, high-
lighting information on water quality in
the rural environment.
INSPECT OLD BARNS
I was in a barn recently that had a
beautiful crop of hay piled high in the
hay mow. Unfortunately, the old beams
supporting the floor had deteriorated
over the years and were starting to crack
and buckle. Underneath the coats of
white wash, the dry rot was plain to see.
So, if you have an older barn, it might
not be a bad idea to do a little poking
around and see if those sturdy looking
timbers really are.0
by J. J. Smith
farm management specialist
QUACKGRASS
CONTROL OUTLINED
The Canadian Quackgrass Action
Committee met in London, Ontario
recently to discuss recent studies into
quackgrass control.
Deep mouldboard plowing (mbp),
that is below 15 cm (six inches) can
delay the emergence of quack for up to
18 months, as opposed to more shallow
tillage that will allow the shoots to re-
emerge within one to 12 months.
However, plowing is not practical as it
will not kill the quack outright, is not
economically viable from a fuel and
fertilizer standpoint, and tends to de-
grade the soil as well. Mechanical fal-
low does kill the quack to a greater
extent (under droughty conditions), but
it causes severe soil degradation in re-
turn.
In continually tilled land, normal fall
plowing or minimums tillage (mt) to a
depth of no more than 15 cm will only
affect about 1/3 to 1/2 of the total quack
rhizomes that are present in the soil. The
rest remain viable below the depth of
cultivation. Spring tillage is even less
effective for quack control. As ex-
pected, no -till (nt) systems in them-
selves had no effect on quack control,
but it was found that 99 per cent of the
quack rhizomes were found within 15
cm of the surface in a permanent nt
system.
The studies indicated that it was very
important to keep quack rhizomes close
to the surface for successful chemical
control. For nt, the best chemical man-
agement was a combination fall and
spring application of Glyphosate, each
at 1/4 of the full rate. It was essential that
the quack was actively growing, with a
minimum of three leaves at the time of
spraying.
Sethoxydim proved to be of limited
use for nt. It required a minimum of two
applications of 112 rate spaced five days
apart to give good control. Sethoxydim
apparently required complementary till-
age to provide adequate control. How-
ever, tillage can commence within one
day of spraying with Sethoxydim, as
opposed to the minimum five day wait
required by Glyphosate. There appears
to be no advantage to alternating the two