Category: Manure Storage

Posted on

Siting Animal Production Facilities and Evaluating Odor Control Options Using the Odor Footprint Tool

Reprinted, with permission, from the proceedings of: Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference.

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Poultry, Dairy, Beef, Swine
Use Area: Animal Housing, Manure Storage
Technology Category: Facility Siting
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Odor

System Summary

The Odor Footprint Tool is a worksheet/spreadsheet that provides objective, science-based information on the risk-based impact of odors generated by livestock facilities. The user enters information about the livestock facilities for a given site, the site location (for selection of regional weather data), use of supplemental odor control, and any special terrain around the site. After using the Odor Footprint Tool, the user obtains minimum setback distances in four directions matching up with targets for avoiding odor annoyance. The Odor Footprint Tool can help assess the reduction in the size of a facility’s odor footprint due to use of proven odor control technology.

By using the Odor Footprint Tool, producers and their advisors can mitigate neighbor impacts of odor and air-borne pollutants through improved siting of facilities. They can also use the Odor Footprint Tool to assess the benefit of odor control technologies in terms of reduced area of odor impact, which encourages the utilization of effective control technologies.

Applicability

  • Assesses frequency of odor annoyance from housed swine, cattle and poultry production facilities
  • Considers animal housing facilities and manure storage facilities
  • Assesses reduction in odor footprint due to using proven odor control technology
  • Used on a regional basis within a state
  • Recommended for use as a planning and screening tool

Limitations

  • Not ready for use with open lots, treatment lagoons, and other large area sources
  • Not for assessing odor annoyance during application of manure
  • Requires its own set of emission values
  • Dispersion modeling is required upfront for confident use in a new region having differing weather patterns.
  • Simplified footprints may seem over-simplified or lack desired level of precision

Cost

There is no direct cost for using the publicly available versions of the Odor Footprint Tool to obtain directional setback distances or for conferring with an Extension educator. When producers defer use to an advisor/consultant, it is reasonable to expect to pay for consultant time associated with using the tool, getting their technical response and recommendations, creating project-specific visuals, and presenting material to permitting authorities, local zoning commissions, lenders, etc.

The primary costs associated with the Odor Footprint Tool are upfront costs of calibrating and validating the dispersion model and performing dispersion modeling using weather data for a specific area. Grant funds have been utilized within Nebraska and South Dakota for this purpose.

Authors

Rick Stowell, Chris Henry, Crystal Powers, and Dennis Schulte
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Point of Contact:
Rick Stowell, rstowell2@unl.edu

The information provided here was developed for the conference Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference held in May 2008. To obtain updates, readers are encouraged to contact the author.

Posted on

The Use of Vegetative Environmental Buffers For Livestock and Poultry Odor Mitigation

Reprinted, with permission, from the proceedings of: Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference.

The proceedings, “Mitigating Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations”, with expanded versions of these summaries can be purchased through the Midwest Plan Service.

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Poultry, Dairy, Beef, Swine
Use Area: Animal Housing and Manure Storage
Technology Category: Vegetative Buffers
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Particulate Matter, Odor, Ammonia

System Summary

Vegetative Environmental Buffers (VEBs) – linear arrangements of trees and shrubs planted near and around livestock/poultry production sites – have been shown to incrementally mitigate odors, particulates, and ammonia through a complex of dynamics. Among the most important dynamics are: 1) enhancement of vertical atmospheric mixing through forced mechanical turbulence – leading to enhanced dilution/dispersion of odor; 2) odor filtration through particulate interception and retention – odor largely travels by way of particulates; capturing particulates also captures odors; 3) odor/particulate fallout due to gravitational forces enhanced by reduced wind speeds; 4) adsorption and absorption of ammonia onto and into the plant – this is due to a chemical affinity that ammonia has to the waxy coating on tree leaves; 5) softening socio-psychological responses to odor due to improved site aesthetics and creating “out of sight, out of mind” dynamics; and 6) improved producer/community relations by using highly visible odor management technology.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • As air moves across vegetative surfaces, leaves and other aerial plant surfaces can remove odors, dust, gas, and microbial constituents of airstreams.
  • VEBs can mitigate odors/ particulates from all livestock/poultry species;
  • VEBs are size neutral technology and can be used to mitigate odors/particulates from all sources of odor: buildings, manure storage, and land application.
  • Trees/shrubs are among the most efficient natural filtering structures in a landscape.

Limitations

  • Mitigation effectiveness is highly site specific and will vary considerably from farm to farm.
  • VEBs often require considerable land area and may take up to five years to become physically effective.
  • Care in VEB design must be taken to avoid causing snow deposition, ventilation, and on-farm visibility problems.
  • At best, odor/particulate mitigation will be “incremental” and therefore should be always used with other odor management strategies.

Cost

Costs for VEB systems are highly variable and are site/design specific – but for midsized producers (and larger) VEBs likely amount to just a few cents per animal produced. There are three main categories of expenses associated with VEBs: 1) Site prep costs, 2) tree establishment costs, and 3) long term maintenance costs. It should be noted that the majority (usually in the range of 40-70%) of the total cost is “upfront” and is tied to the cost of the initial planting stock (e.g. older, larger nursery stock can be considerably more expensive than bare-root seedlings but such an investment may “buy time” in VEB establishment). Long term maintenance costs vary depending upon the overall health of the VEB. It should be recognized that there are expenditures that occur regularly throughout the life of a VEB and maintenance is an annual process, however as a VEB system matures the annual maintenance requirements will likely decrease over time.

Authors

John C. Tyndall11Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management
Point of Contact:
John C. Tyndall, jtyndall@iastate.edu

The information provided here was developed for the conference Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference held in May 2008. To obtain updates, readers are encouraged to contact the author.

Posted on

A Receptor-Based Siting Strategy for Swine Production Systems

Reprinted, with permission, from the proceedings of: Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference.

The proceedings, “Mitigating Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations”, with expanded versions of these summaries can be purchased through the Midwest Plan Service.

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Swine
Use Area: Animal Housing, Manure Storage
Technology Category: Facility Siting
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Odor

System Summary

A model, called the Community Assessment Model for Odor Dispersion (CAM), was developed to predict receptor odor exposure from multiple swine production sources. The intended use of CAM was to provide a tool for evaluating the odor exposure to receptors in a community when siting new swine production systems and how a change in odor control technology alters the odor exposure to receptors. CAM can handle up to 20 swine production sources with up to 100 receptors in a community of any size. The model incorporates historical (10+ years) average local weather data, coordinates locations of all sources and receptors, ground and above-ground area sources, seasonal variations in odor emission, source production footprint and orientation, and documented proven odor mitigation technologies. CAM does not predict the influence of calm conditions, topography, or obstruction downwash. CAM predicts the number of hours of exposure to weak (2:1) and greater or identifiable (7:1) and greater odors and these are used to assess siting options.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Site location planning for new swine housing and manure storage systems
  • Model developed specific for swine production systems
  • CAM can model up to 20 swine sources and up to 100 receptors in a land area of any size

Limitations

  • CAM has been developed and calibrated for swine systems only
  • Calm conditions not modeled
  • Terrain features beyond rural terrains not modeled
  • CAM requires local historical weather data (10+ years)

Cost

The CAM model requires site specific information to properly implement. Currently CAM is implemented with the ½-time support of an on-campus staff member with no charge to the farmer. A more formal procedure is being developed where a CAM evaluation will require a farmer-fee of either $500/siting case or $1,000/siting case depending on the complexity of the proposed site. A $500 cost to a farmer would be a situation where a campus or extension field staff member is required to visit a proposed site to help guide siting decisions using localized odor plots (described in paper). If the complexity of the proposed site warrants a full CAM modeling run, an additional $500 is required from the farmer.

Authors

Steven J. Hoff1, Dwaine S. Bundy1, Jay D. Harmon1, Colin D. Johnson11Iowa State University Point of Contact:
Steven J. Hoff, hoffer@iastate.edu

The information provided here was developed for the conference Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference held in May 2008. To obtain updates, readers are encouraged to contact the author.

Posted on

Siting of Livestock & Poultry Facilities Using MNSET

Reprinted, with permission, from the proceedings of: Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference.

The proceedings, “Mitigating Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations”, with expanded versions of these summaries can be purchased through the Midwest Plan Service.

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Poultry, Dairy, Beef, Swine
Use Area: Animal Housing, Manure Storage
Technology Category: Facility Siting
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Odor, Hydrogen Sulfide, Ammonia

System Summary

MNSET predicts three separate air quality impacts. The first prediction is for odor impacts at any given distance downwind from the facilities. The second prediction is for the frequency of exceeding the MN state standard for hydrogen sulfide (30 ppb / 30-minute average not to be exceeded twice in a five day period). Although this may not be applicable for other states it does show relative impacts of hydrogen sulfide. Additionally, MNSET estimates both daily and annual pounds of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia emitted from the modeled facility. Remember however that the outputs of the models are only as valid as the inputs. A literature review was done to develop the flux values used in the model.

MNSET can be used to evaluate the impact of existing sites and quantify reductions of these impacts using various treatment technologies. Unfortunately, this requires reliable quantification of the emission reductions from the mitigation technologies.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Tool for predicting air quality impacts for odor, hydrogen sulfide and ammonia
  • Allows for adding mitigation to reduce these impacts
  • Free downloadable spreadsheet
  • User can add new technologies

Limitations

  • Based on average flux values
  • Conservative predictions
  • Based on Minnesota weather conditions and regulations

Cost

This software can be downloaded free at University of Minnesota Manure Management. The use of MNSET to evaluate the downwind impacts of any mitigation technologies is very valuable both in new construction and in solving existing air quality problems.

Authors

David Schmidt and Larry Jacobson, University of Minnesota
Point of Contact:
David Schmidt, schmi071@umn.edu

The information provided here was developed for the conference Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference held in May 2008. To obtain updates, readers are encouraged to contact the author.

Posted on

Manure Storage Safety

Manure storage structures are an integral part of livestock feeding operations. They allow for manure containment until conditions are favorable for land application or other treatment. Manure may be stored in enclosed structures, near or directly below the animal housing facility or it may be stored in open structures such as above ground tanks or storage ponds/lagoons.

Recommended Resources:

Archived webinar: Manure Safety & Transport

Penn State Extension Manure Pit Safety Fact Sheet Series

The risks differ for each type of manure handling system. Enclosed structures are commonly associated with asphyxiation hazards related to gases produced during manure decomposition. Open structures are most often associated with drowning. Most systems include pumps or mechanical components that present the risk of entanglement. It is critical that producers take the time to assess the risks on their operation and evaluate ways to prevent hazardous situations and to develop emergency response plans. Related: Manure Storage Safety fact sheet

Enclosed Structure Hazards

Enclosed structures, especially those located below ground, are potentially the most hazardous for people and livestock. While being stored, manure undergoes decomposition. As a result, many potentially harmful or fatal gases are produced, but most remain at low levels or are adequately diluted by the ventilation system. Situations in which these gases can become deadly include:

  • Agitation of the liquid manure prior to or during pumping from the pit
  • Power outage or other failure of the ventilation system
  • Buildup of flammable or explosive gases

Manure Gases and Their Associated Safety Concerns

Hydrogen Sulfide

lagoon

A sign like this “Danger: Liquid Manure Storage” should posted for all types of liquid manure storage, enclosed or open. Consider posting this message in other languages if there are non-English speakers living or working on or near the farm.

Hydrogen sulfide is the greatest danger to humans in enclosed manure storage areas. It has a characteristic “rotten egg” smell and is heavier than air, so it tends to collect in the lower levels of a structure and in corners of the storage area where air circulation is least available. It quickly desensitizes the sense of smell so that a person does not detect greater levels of the gas after breathing it. It can be rapidly released when manure is agitated. At low levels (10 ppm) it can irritate the eyes. Death can occur when it reaches levels of 500 ppm or greater.

Ammonia

Ammonia has a distinctive, sharp odor and is heavier than air. It becomes irritating to humans at around 50 ppm. If it reaches levels of 1000 ppm or more, it can be deadly, although most people are so uncomfortable at this level, they usually seek relief by leaving a building before it reaches dangerous concentrations. Prolonged exposure to high ammonia levels can also impact animal performance.

Methane

Methane is a concern because it is potentially explosive at levels above 50,000 ppm. It is lighter than air and odorless. In the fall of 2009, enough manure pit-related fires and explosions were reported to attract renewed attention to the safety concerns related to gas buildup. Other potentially explosive gases produced by manure decomposition are hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and phosphine (PH3, but both become lethal to animals and humans at concentrations far below that required for ignition. A literature review by Iowa State University (supported by the Pork Board) provides additional information on this topic. Deep Pit Swine Facility Flash Fires and Explosions.

In a properly designed anaerobic digester, methane production can be enhanced and possibly captured for use in electrical generation. For more information see Introduction to Biogas and Anaerobic Digestion.

Carbon Dioxide

Carbon dioxide is odorless, but can cause asphyxiation if it displaces enough oxygen in the air. It is heavier than air and tends to accumulate in the same areas as hydrogen sulfide.

Open structure hazards

image

This manure storage structure is fenced and has a life preserver in a prominent location. The concrete ramp by the gate provides an easy escape point for humans and wildlife that fall into the pit. Note that this fencing will discourage entry but will not prevent a determined child from exploring the pit. If young children live on or visit your farm, a chain link fence will provide a higher degree of deterrence than multi-strand wire fences and gates such as this.

Open manure storage ponds or above ground storage tanks also pose hazards, the most obvious of which is drowning. A storage pond may form a crust on the surface that appears solid and capable of holding a person’s weight. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Children are also at risk of drowning in these structures and safety considerations must always include ways to prevent access to these areas, such as fencing, gates with locks and outside walls on concrete structures that preclude easy entry.

To prevent drowning, it is recommended that farmers purchase and install safety measures such as life preservers or life vests, throw ropes, and/or safety harnesses (with anchor points around the structure). This equipment can save lives; not only for the victim but rescuers who can safely assist without entering the structure themselves. This was illustrated in May, 2012 in a tragic incident in Maryland. A farmer and two of his teenage sons were drowned in a manure storage structure while attempting to pump the manure out for land application. There were no surviving witnesses, but the

likely scenario is that one of the three fell into the pit and the other two died trying to rescue him.

Recommended Reading

Case Studies

Authors: Chip Petrea, University of Illinois and Jill Heemstra University of Nebraska
Reviewers: Saqib Mukhtar, Texas AgriLife Extension; Jennifer Zwicke, USDA NRCS; Troy Chockley, USDA NRCS, Greg Martin, Penn State

Posted on

Liquid Manure Storage Treatment Options, Including Lagoons

A vital component of liquid livestock and poultry manure collection and handling systems is storage capacity for the collected manure and associated material(flush water, wasted feed, etc.). This manure storage capacity is typically in the form of under-floor pits or outside storage tanks or ponds and/or treatment lagoons. These structures accumulate collected wastes and allow the waste management system operator to move away from a “daily scrape (collect) and haul” situation. This reduces time and labor needed for final disposition (either land application or off-farm “value-added” processing) of these manure accumulations.

What Is a Liquid Manure System?

“Liquid” livestock manure collection and handling systems are actually “fluid” livestock manure collection and handling systems. These systems are selected based upon the consistency or “thickness” of the manure and its flow characteristics. Manure flow characteristics are highly dependent on “solids content” or “percent solids” of the manure volume.

Liquid manure storage volume size depends on the amount of time in a year that is not available for land application or other manure utilization strategies. This is the design storage period. Land application time depends on growing season of the target crop(s) and local weather. Manure storage volume should be emptied by the end of the design storage period to be able to hold the expected amount of manure accumulation during the next storage period.

Earthen storage structure with artificial liner (from Proper Lagoon Management to Reduce Odor and Excessive Sludge Accumulation).

This web page deals with two general categories of liquid systems:

  • Pits or slurry systems for storage only
  • Lagoons with both slurry/wastewater storage and treatment (see National Center White Paper summary, Manure Management Strategies).

Types of Manure

“As-excreted” livestock manure moisture content changes as it moves through the collection process into storage. Liquid collection and handling systems add waste drinking water, wash water, flush water, rain, and stormwater runoff, lowering solids content below the 15% level typically used to define “solid” manure. A manure volume of 5 to 15% solids is “slurry” manure, with consistency and flow characteristics similar to thick chocolate malt. Manure volumes with 0 to 5% solids content have consistency and flow characteristics similar to water.

What Is the Difference Between Storage and Storage With Treatment?

Contrasting storage and storage w/treatment, a manure containment structure which is emptied at the end of the storage period is essentially a storage structure. A lagoon has storage volume but will also have a permanent pool for residual treatment volume that provides a bacterial seed bed for continual bacterial action at an elevated level. This permanent pool is not considered in the design of a structure used for storage alone. Essentially whatever goes into a properly managed storage structure is what is pumped out. A lagoon, however, is designed to promote decomposition of organic matter entering the lagoon. For this reason, a lagoon is much larger than a storage pond.

Management of Lagoons

A manure containment structure which is not emptied at the end of the storage period is being operated as a lagoon, whether designed that way or not. Storage operated in this manner becomes a smelly, overloaded lagoon. Generally, when agitation is used to put settled or floating solids into suspension before pumping out the effluent, or the slurry, the structure is being operated as storage.

Digested solids do accumulate in a lagoon and should be removed once every ten or more years, or as specified by the system design to restore residual treatment volume. In rare circumstances, particular to specific lagoons approaching this restoration point, some engineers recommend some agitation during normal pumpout to remove some of this accumulation. Routine pumping from the storage volume portion of a lagoon involves only wastewater (<5% solids) and requires no agitation.

Related Web Pages

Recommended Educational Resources

National Center for Manure and Animal Waste Management white paper summary, Manure Management Strategies published by North Carolina State University. A two page Executive Summary is available. The full white paper can be ordered from Midwest Plan Service, Iowa State University.

Page Managers: Ted Tyson, Auburn University, tysontw@auburn.edu and Saqib Mukhtar, Texas A&M University, mukhtar@tamu.edu .

Posted on

Earthen Manure Containment Structures

Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Center:

Home Page

All articles about:

Handling, Storage & Mortalities

Contents


Siting an Earthen Manure Storage Structure

Because earthen manure and process generated wastewater storage structures are generally less expensive to build than above-ground metal or concrete tanks or below-ground concrete tanks, most operators choose earthen storage construction (ponds) where possible. To minimize potential for surface and ground water contamination, storage structures are located at least 150 feet from any uphill well, 500 feet from other wells, and 50 feet from the manure production/collection area (typically, animal housing). Check state and/or local regulations for specific setback distances for manure collection and storage structures in your area.

For gravity transfer of collected manure wastes to storage pond and possible settling basin use, sewer lines are generally installed on 1% slopes and sized for flow velocities greater than 2 feet per second. A waste storage pond should not be located in a flood plain nor should the bottom of the pond be constructed to a depth below the underground water table unless curtain drains or interception drains are installed around the perimeter of the pond at least 1 foot below the pond bottom.

Standards for Earthen Manure Storage Structures

Properly designed, installed and operated according to accepted engineering standards defined by USDA-NRCS and ASABE publications listed below under “Recommended Reading on Earthen Manure Containment Structures”, earthen manure structures should pose little risk to water quality.

Geology and Soils

Geologic conditions and treatments are determined from county soil surveys and performance of other waste storage ponds in the area and an on-site inspection. A backhoe under the direction of an experienced engineer, geologist, or soil scientist is one of the best subsurface soil investigation tools available.

An on-site subsurface soils investigation determines if the planned manure storage site has shallow soil over coarse sand and gravel, creviced limestone, or permeable bedrock. If any of these conditions exist, construction procedures and materials to prevent seepage to ground water, such as clay liners, geotextile or fabric liners, or concrete, are used.

As part of the animal waste management technical assistance program, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) currently offers on-site soils and geologic investigation assistance for animal waste management structures. NRCS should be contacted for assistance. Corrective treatments at some locations could be so costly that aboveground storage may be required or a waste management system at the site may be totally impractical. This could force moving an existing animal facility to a more suitable location and should definitely be a significant part of the site investigation process for new animal facility installations.

Related Web Pages

Recommended Reading on Earthen Manure Containment Structures

Page Managers: Ted Tyson, Auburn University, tysontw@auburn.edu and Saqib Mukhtar, Texas A&M University, mukhtar@tamu.edu .

Posted on

Spreading Manure on Horse Farms

Equipment For Handling and Applying Manure On Small Farms

A tractor and a manure spreader are needed to ensure proper field application of stored manure. Some small farms may be able to utilize small ground-drive spreaders that can be pulled behind an all-terrain vehicle or pickup instead of a tractor. Pull-type spreaders are traditionally used, although truck-mounted spreaders are sometimes used on larger farms.

Solid manure can be removed from storage using front-end loaders, scrapers, or other handling equipment. Small or limited-resource farms can get by with equipment as simple as a wheelbarrow and pitch fork. The size of the equipment influences the time required to load, haul, and spread manure. For more information see Nutrient Planning on Small Farms.

Environmental Considerations When Spreading Manure

Manure should not be spread where and when there is any risk for water pollution, such as near streams, ponds, wells or other waterbodies. Your local soil and water conservation district or Natural Resources Conservation Service office can also help identify if additional special protection areas exist on farmland and bordering properties.

Stored manure should be applied to the soil in a thin layer to speed drying and discourage fly breeding. Spreading incompletely composted manure on horse pastures should be avoided due to the risk of infecting pastures with internal parasites. Manure should be spread at agronomic rates (rates equal to or less than plants will use in a year). When stockpiled manure is spread on crop fields, the application may not meet the total needs of the crop. Each source of horse manure will vary, especially when different bedding sources are used. Typically, a ton of horse manure will contain eleven pounds of nitrogen, two pounds of phosphorous, and eight pounds of potassium. Average values are given in the table below and can help to determine the number of acres needed to properly apply the horse manure. Refer to your local Cooperative Extension office to get a list of laboratories that will do manure analysis.

Nutrient Content of Horse Manure
Manure Percent Solids Nitrogen – N Phosphorus – P2O5 Potassium – K2O
(tons/year) % (lb./year) (lb./year) (lb./year)
9.1 22.0 102 40 84

When Should Manure Be Land Applied?

Spring is the preferred time to apply manure. Forage or hay crops generally provide the greatest flexibility in planning land application operations. Cool season grasses can generally utilize manure nutrients from early spring to late fall, and application equipment generally does not adversely affect the crop regardless of its growth stage. However, spreading manure on wet soils should be discouraged as it leads to soil compaction and tearing of the top soil.

Manure Nutrient Availability

When spread, not all nutrients in manure are immediately available for plant use. The amount of nitrogen available is a function of the percentage of nitrogen in the manure, whether or not it is incorporated in the soil, and the rate of organic matter decomposition of the manure. Nitrogen availability (during the first growing season) will range from 35% of the total nitrogen when manure is spread on the soil surface to 60% when immediately incorporated into the soil. Availabilities of phosphorus from phosphate (P2O5) and potassium from potash (K2O) are commonly set at 80% and 90% of totals, respectively. For links to publications that include more detailed information and formulas for estimating nutrient availability from manure see Manure Nutrient Management Educational and Informational Resources.

Manure Containing Wood Shavings or Sawdust May Require Additional Management

Horse manure often has an additional consideration when it comes to nutrient availability. Sawdust or wood shavings are high-carbon materials that require a great deal of nitrogen to break down. This process can tie up available nitrogen, rendering it unavailable to plants or crops. A fact sheet on how to manage horse manure that contains wood shavings or sawdust is Horse Manure Management: The Nitrogen Enhancement System.

Too Much Manure?

In situations where land application is not an option or the farm has more manure than can be appropriately utilized, the producer will need to consider Off-Farm Manure Disposal options.

Additional Information

Author: Michael Westendorf, Department of Animal Sciences, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Posted on

Diet Modification to Reduce Odors, Gas Emissions and Nutrient Excretions from Swine Operations

Can Changing Pig Diets Reduce Odor Emissions?

The pork industry has undergone a rapid change in the past two decades, with a decrease in farm numbers and an increase in farm size. These changes magnify the stress of the compatibility of pork production with neighbors in rural America. Concerns of the potential impact of the swine operation on water and air quality and health are also raised due to numerous compounds often produced from anaerobic degradation of animal manures, such as, sulfurous compounds, volatile fatty acids (VFAs), and ammonia (NH3). Since the pig is the point source of excreted nutrients resulting in gas and odor emissions, diet modification has the potential to reduce nutrient output and improve air quality.

Our hypothesis is that by utilizing a low nutrient excretion diet formulation and an alternative manure management strategy, the amount of nutrient output and gas/odor emissions will be reduced over the wean-finish period.

Activities

A total of 1, 920 pigs (initial BW = 5.29 kg) were used in a 2 x 2 factorial, wean-finish experiment to determine the effects of diet (control, CTL vs. low nutrient excretion, LNE) and manure management (6 mo. deep-pit, DP vs. monthly pull plug-recharge, PP) on growth performance, nutrient output, and air quality. Pigs were housed in a 12-room environmental building.

Pigs were split-sex and phase-fed to meet or exceed their nutrient requirements (NRC, 1998) at different stages of growth. The CTL and LNE diets were corn-soybean meal based and formulated to an equal Lysine:calorie. The LNE diet formulation had reduced CP and P, increased synthetic amino acids, phytase, non-sulfur trace mineral premix and added fat. Improvements in pig performance were observed over the wean-finish period.

Did Lysine Affect Performance or Odorous Emissions?

Pigs fed the LNE diets were 4.3 kg heavier (131.2 vs. 126.9 kg) at market, gain was increased by 0.03 kg/d (0.83 vs. 0.80 kg/d), feed intake was reduced by 0.16 kg/d (1.95 vs. 2.11 kg/d), and overall feed efficiency was increased by 11.6% (0.43 vs. 0.38) compared to CTL fed pigs (P<0.01). In addition, manure generation was reduced by 0.39 L/pig/d when the LNE diets were fed vs. the CTL diets (4.05 vs. 4.44 L/pig/d, P<0.008).

Excretion of total N, P, and K was reduced (P<0.001) by 27.5, 42.5, and 20.4%, respectively, from LNE fed pigs. Pigs fed the LNE diets had a 25.5, 23.8, 32.3, 18.5, 35.8, and 26.7% reduction (P<0.05) in manure acetate, iso-butyrate, iso-valerate, valerate, and total VFA production, respectively, compared to CTL fed pigs. Using the PP manure strategy reduced manure ammonium N and VFA production by 10.3 % (16.5 vs. 18.4 g/pig/d; P<0.002) and 20.5% (26.0 vs. 32.7 mM/pig/d; P<0.001), respectively, compared to DP strategy. Pigs fed LNE diets had a 13.6% (P<0.001) reduction in aerial NH3 emissions over the wean-finish period compared to pigs fed CTL diets. Aerial H2S and SO2 emissions and odor were not different (P>0.10) between dietary treatments.

Why is This Important?

Feeding LNE diet formulations are effective in reducing environmental impacts of pork production while maintaining growth performance. In addition, utilizing a monthly pull plug-recharge manure management strategy can improve air quality parameters, however can be more labor intensive.

For More Information

Contact us at jradclif@purdue.edu or (765)496-7718.

By Scott Radcliffe, Brian Richert, Danielle Sholly, Ken Foster, Brandon Hollas, Teng Lim, Jiqin Ni, Al Heber, Alan Sutton – Purdue University

This report was prepared for the 2008 annual meeting of the regional research committee, S-1032 “Animal Manure and Waste Utilization, Treatment and Nuisance Avoidance for a Sustainable Agriculture”. This report is not peer-reviewed and the author has sole responsibility for the content.

Posted on

Protocol for Determining the Cost/Benefit of a Manure Storage Lagoon Cover

Do Manure Storage Covers Pay?

A protocol was developed to determine the cost/benefit of installing a cover over a manure storage structure. Included are a discussion on the cost and selection of the cover, a procedure to determine the feasibility of biogas production and capture, the technique to estimate the dilution of the slurry resulting from precipitation, and tools to estimate ammonia emissions, thereby predict the increase in nitrogen content and the savings from reduced fertilizer hauling. By considering the combination of all of these factors, the payback period can be calculated.

Current Activity

The protocol has been developed and a case study was performed. A manuscript is in preparation.

What We Have Learned

Techniques to identify the items that determine the cost and benefit have been researched and refined for the protocol. Based on a sensitivity analysis a crucial benefit is the savings associated with keeping precipitation out of the manure thus avoiding extra hauling costs. As a result, relatively short payback periods can be realized.

Why is This Important

One of the most common practices to store manure is the use of open storage structures. Numerous problems for farmers are created by the open structure including ammonia loss, methane emissions, odor complaints, and increased hauling of manure slurry. Covering a lagoon offers substantial environmental benefits and can save farmers money.

a lagoon cover recently installed on a dairy farm

For More Information

Steve Safferman
Michigan State University
Biosystems Engineering
202 Farrall Hall
East Lansing, MI 48824

This report was prepared for the annual meeting of the regional research committee, S-1032 “Animal Manure and Waste Utilization, Treatment and Nuisance Avoidance for a Sustainable Agriculture”. This report is not peer-reviewed and the author has sole responsibility for the content.

Proudly powered by WordPress