Tag: ammonia

Posted on

Dietary manipulations to lower ammonia emission from laying-hen manure

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Poultry (Layers)
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Ration Manipulation
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia

System Summary

Dietary manipulation has been shown to lower ammonia emission from laying-hen manure. Dietary amendments include lowering the protein content of the diet, including high-fiber ingredients such as corn distiller’s dried grains with solubles (DDGS), or including EcoCalTM—a proprietary mixture of calcium sulfate and zeolite. Liang et al. (2005) showed that a 1% lower crude protein diet caused a 10% decrease in ammonia emission from laying hens housed in high-rise houses. Roberts et al. (2007) found 40% lower ammonia emission from manure of hens fed 10% DDGS, 38% lower emission when hens were fed 7.3% wheat middlings, and 26% lower emission when hens were fed 4.8% soybean hulls compared to a standard diet. Field research from our group indicates that 3.5% dietary EcoCal lowers ammonia emission by 23%. Research has also evaluated the egg production from hens fed each of the adjusted diets and demonstrated that, when diets are properly formulated, egg production will be similar to that from hens fed a standard control diet.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Ammonia volatilization from laying-hen manure is affected by manure pH, content and chemical form of nitrogen, moisture content, and physical handling of manure
  • Low protein diets lower nitrogen content of the manure
  • High-fiber diets lower manure pH
  • In EcoCal, calcium sulfate lowers manure pH and zeolite binds ammonia, preventing or reducing volatilization

Limitations

  • High-fiber ingredients may not be suitable for nutrient-dense diets
  • Amino acid requirements of hens must be precisely known in order to formulate low-protein diets and maintain egg production
  • EcoCal adds cost to the diet with little nutrient addition
  • Diet cost and ammonia reduction must be evaluated for each individual egg production situation

Cost

The cost of diet modifications must be determined for each individual egg production situation. Feed ingredients are often priced according to private contracts and proximity to the supplier. Feed ingredients can only be added to the diet in exchange for other ingredients (mainly corn and soybean meal), making the evaluation of price amongst ingredients difficult. This exchange of one ingredient for another should be analyzed as the total diet cost of a nutritionally balanced diet, considering all ingredients together. Least-cost diet formulations consider the cost of an ingredient with regards to nutrient content. High-fiber ingredients are typically going to have a relatively low energy content and varying contents of digestible amino acids and minerals, which can be valued in the diet formulation. Low-crude protein diets are formulated by adding crystalline amino acids to the diet, replacing soybean meal and increasing corn. These diets may be cost-effective if the price of amino acids is favorable. EcoCal contributes some calcium to the diet, partially replacing limestone, a relatively inexpensive diet component.

Authors

S.A. Roberts1, H.Xin1, H. Li1, R.T. Burns1, K. Bregendahl1, E.C. Hale III3
1Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 2 Rose Acre Farms, Seymore, Indiana
Point of Contact:
hxin@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

Dietary Manipulation to Reduce Ammonia Emission from High-Rise Layer Houses

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Poultry (Layers)
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Ration Manipulation
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia

System Summary

Ammonia (NH3) generation from poultry production is a result of microbial decomposition of uric acid and undigested nitrogen in bird feces. Ammonia emission is associated with nitrogen (N) content of the feces, which is influenced by feed composition and feed conversion efficiency of the bird. To reduce N content in feces, ration may be formulated with reduced dietary crude protein (CP) and supplemented with limiting amino acids (AA) to match bird dietary requirements, thereby improving digestive conversion efficiency. Utilization of lower CP diets with supplemented essential amino acids is a source reduction method to mitigate ammonia emission from layer hen production facilities. Lower N excretion in the bird feces due to lower total N intake can result in lower NH3 emission from the system. The lower CP diet used in this study had 0.4 to 1.2% less CP than the standard or control diet during various feeding phases. The lower CP diet resulted in about 10% ammonia emission reduction. Formulation based on nutritional requirement at different feeding phases is required to achieve emission reduction without affecting bird performance, i.e. egg production and case weight. The cost of low CP diet is about 1% lower than that of the standard dietary formulation (2008 prices).

 

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Lower CP diet can have 0.4 to 1.2% lower CP than a standard diet during the various feeding phases.
  • Soy content is reduced in lower CP diets, and crystalline AA DL-methionine, L-lysine.HCL and L-threonine is supplemented to maintain the same essential AA levels in both diets for a given feeding phase.
  • Tryptophan and isoleucine in the lower CP diet may be slightly lower (from 0.02% to 0.06%) than those in the standard diets without affecting bird performance.

 

Limitations

  • Crude protein in the diet can only be reduced to certain level to avoid negatively impacting bird performance.

Cost

The cost for the lower CP diet with supplemented crystalline AA DL-methionine, L-lysine.HCL and L-threonine is about 1% lower than that for the standard diet. The cost advantage is better now with the current higher grain costs than in year 2003 when the study was conducted.

Authors

Y. Liang1, H. Xin2, R.S. Gates3, E.F. Wheeler4, K.D. Casey5, B.R.Behrends6, D.J.Burnham7
1University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, 2Iowa State University,Ames, IA, 3University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, 4Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 5Texas AgriLife Research, Amarillo, TX, 6Agri-Tech, a Sparboe Company, Litchfield, MN, 7Aviagen, Huntsville, AL
Point of Contact:
Hongwei Xin, hxin@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

Multi-pollutant Scrubbers for Removal of Ammonia, Odor, and Particulate Matter from Animal House Exhaust Air

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, Poultry
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Scrubber
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia, Odor, Particulate Matter

System Summary

In The Netherlands, Germany and Denmark packed-bed biotrickling filters and acid scrubbers for removal of ammonia from exhaust air of animal houses are off-the-shelf techniques for ammonia removal (70 – 95% average removal). At the moment a new generation of so-called “multi-pollutant scrubbers” is being developed and tested that not only removes ammonia but also aims for significant removal of odor and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) from the air. Recently a 3-year research program has started that monitors and aims to improve the performance of five farm-scale multi-pollutant scrubber from different manufacturers. The preliminary results show that the average ammonia removal is relatively high (83%, n = 7) but that the average removal of odor (40%, n = 8) and particulate matter (PM10: 43%, n = 2; PM2.5: 42%, n = 2) needs to be improved further.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Ammonia scrubbers consist of two types: either acid scrubbers or biotrickling filters
  • Multi-pollutant air scrubbers usually consist of two or more scrubbing stages where subsequent removal of coarse dust, ammonia and odor takes place
  • Scrubber are mainly applied in pig housings with central ventilation ducts; application in poultry housings are scarce because of high dust concentrations
  • Already 10% of all exhaust air from pig houses The Netherlands is treated; this equals a treatment capacity of 79 million m3/hour

Limitations

  • Odor and dust removal is less effective than ammonia removal, at least for now
  • High concentrations of coarse dust result in blockage of packing material and increased energy use (pressure drop)
  • Costs are considered high, but multi-pollutant scrubbers provide an option for large scale livestock operations to remain in operation in areas nearby residential areas and sensitive ecosystems

Cost

Investment and operational cost of scrubbers for newly built production facilities in € / animal space.
Acid Scrubber Biotrickling Filter Multi-pollutant scrubber (3-stage water/acid/biotrickling)
Investment Costs 32.8 43.5 50.3
Operational Costs (year^1):
Depreciation (10%) 2.6 3.4 4.2
Maintenance (3%) 1.5 1.8 2.0
Interest (6%) 0.8 1.0 1.2
Electricity use ((€ 0.11 kWh^-1) 3.3 3.8 3.7
Water use (€ 1.0 m^-3) 0.6 1.7 0.6
Chemical use (€ 0.6 L^-1 H2SO4, 98%) 1.4 n/a 0.7
Water discharge [b 0.6 2.5 1.0
Total operational costs (year^-1) 10.8 14.3 13.5

[a] The investment costs are based on a maximum ventilation capacity of 60 m3 animal place-1 h-1.
[b] Water disposal costs are assumed of € 10/m3 for discharge from acid scrubbing and € 2/m3 for discharge from biotrickling or water scrubbing. For the multi-pollutant scrubber, discharge water from the biotrickling or water scrubbing step is reused in the acid scrubbing step. The systems do not include a denitrification unit which might significantly decrease water discharge costs.
[c] n/a = not applicable.

Authors

Roland W. Melse, Nico W.M. Ogink, Bert J.J. Bosma; Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen University and Research centre, The Netherlands
Point of Contact:
Roland W. Melse, roland.melse@wur.nl

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

Reduction of Ammonia Emission from Stored Laying-hen Manure Using Topically Applied Additives: Zeolite, Al+Clear, Ferix-3 and PLT

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 (Layers)
Use Area: Manure Storage
Technology Category: Chemical Amendment
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia

System Summary

Manure storage can be a significant source of ammonia (NH3) emission that could negatively impact the environment. Ammonia emission from manure storage may be controlled through physical, chemical and/or biological means. In this study, five treatment agents, including zeolite, 48.5% liquid Al+Clear (aluminum sulfate), granular Al+Clear (aluminum sulfate), granular Ferix-3 (ferric sulfate), and PLT (sodium bisulfate) were topically applied to stored nearly fresh laying-hen manure. Each agent was tested at three application rates, i.e., low, medium and high. Hen manure was stored in 19-litter Teflon-lined vessels under a constant ambient temperature of 23oC (73oF) and a ventilation rate of 11 air changes per hour (3 L/min). The NH3 concentrations and emissions from the vessels were measured and NH3 emission reductions by the treatment regimens were evaluated with reference to the control. The results show that there were no significant difference between the high and medium dosages for Al+Clear, Ferix 3, and PLT after the 7-d storage period. Reduction of NH3 emission by the topical application of the agents over a 7-day manure storage/testing period was as following: A) 36%, 62% or 92%, respectively, for zeolite applied at0.6, 1.3, or 1.9 lb/ft2 (3.1, 6.3, or 12.5 kg m-2) of manure surface area; B) 63% or 89%, respectively, for liquid Al+Clear applied at 0.2, or 0.4 lb/ft2 (1, or 2 kg m-2); C) 56% or 81% respectively, for dry granular Al+Clear applied at 0.1 or 0.2 lb/ft2 (0.5 or 1.0 kg m-2); D) 42% or 90%, respectively, for Ferix 3 applied at 0.1 or 0.2 lb/ft2 (0.5 or 1.0 kg m-2); and E) 74% or 90%, respectively, for PLT applied at 0.1 or 0.2 lb/ft2 (0.5 or 1.0 kg m-2).

 

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • NH3 volatilization from litter is dependent on pH, moisture content, air velocity, NH4 concentration, and temperature
  • Application of acidulant additives reduces litter pH and suppresses NH3 emission
  • Additives is topically applied to the fresh hen manure in storage

 

Limitations

  • An effective, automated delivery system(s) is (are) needed for the applications and should be fully investigated.
  • The material has a low pH and can be corrosive to handle
  • Ability of the acidulants to reduce pH, and thus reduce emissions, decreases over time

Cost

The costs of the additives with dry form are based on the 50 lb/pack prices of 2008. Ability of the additives to reduce emissions decreases over time. The costs of the topical application of the agents at end of the 7th day was as following: A) 1.56, 1.81 or 1.83 cent/ft2-10% NH3 reduction, respectively, for zeolite applied at 0.6, 1.3, or 1.9 lb/ft2 (3.1, 6.3, or 12.5 kg m-2) of manure surface area; B) 0.25 or 0.36 cent/ft2-10% NH3 reduction, respectively, for liquid Al+Clear applied at 0.2, or 0.4 lb/ft2 (1, or 2 kg m-2); C) 0.36 or 0.49 cent/ft2-10% NH3 reduction, respectively, for dry granular Al+Clear applied at 0.1 or 0.2 lb/ft2 (0.5 or 1.0 kg m-2); D) 0.46 or 0.42 cent/ft2-10% NH3 reduction, respectively, for Ferix-3 applied at 0.1 or 0.2 lb/ft2 (0.5 or 1.0 kg m-2); and E) 0.45 or 0.60 cent/ft2-10% NH3 reduction, respectively, for PLT applied at 0.1 or 0.2 lb/ft2 (0.5 or 1.0 kg m-2).

Authors

H. Li1, H. Xin1, R.S. Burns1, Y.Liang21Iowa State University, 2 University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR
Point of Contact:
Hong Li, lwblue@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

Effects of EcoCalTM on Ammonia Emission from a High-Rise Layer House

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Poultry (Layers)
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Ration Manipulation
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia

System Summary

Continuous emission measurements at two mechanically-ventilated, high-rise layer houses were conducted to study the effects of Ecocal, a feed amendment designed to reduce NH3 emissions. Data presented in this paper was collected at a commercial egg production facility in October to January. The hens in house 2 were fed EcoCal for comparison with the standard diet used in house 1. EcoCal utilizes gypsum, an acidogen, and zeolite, an indigestible cation exchanger to lower manure pH, thus reducing NH3 emissions. Feeding a diet comprising 7% EcoCal significantly reduces manure ammonia emissions by effectively sequestering ammonium in the manure. An average difference of 51% was observed between the houses when EcoCal was implemented for about six weeks, after the house 2 emission rates appeared to have stabilized.

The application of EcoCal was expected to further NH3 emissions more than 51%, but the test was hindered by several unexpected incidents such as a major water line break in the house 2 manure pit and disruption of feed delivery due to a major snow storm. The initial feed costs were significantly increased when EcoCal is added to the diet.

 

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Decreasing manure pH reduces NH3 emission
  • EcoCal is a feed supplement for laying hens, including organic egg production.
  • EcoCal consists of natural minerals such as gypsum and zeolite, to reduce manure pH and sequester more manure nitrogen

 

Limitations

  • Diet should be limited to less than 60% of the dietary calcium supplied by EcoCal, because greater quantities of gypsum can result in thin egg shell and lower layer productivity
  • The cost of EcoCal can be variable, because it is not commercially available and delivery expense depends on geographical location.

 

Cost

The gross cost of adding EcoCal was about 2.4 cents per hen per month or $28,700/yr per 100,000 hens. The effects of EcoCal on egg production were not evaluated in this test, but any increases in egg production would offset the extra cost.

Authors

Teng Teeh Lim1, Alber J. Heber1, E. Carroll Hale III2, Ji-Qin Ni1, Lingying Zhao3
1Purdue University, 2 Rose Acre Farms, 3Ohio State University
Point of Contact:
limit@purdue.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

Feeding a Combination of Acidogenic Materials and Cation Exchangers Reduces Manure Ammonia Emissions and Improves Laying Hen Performance

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 (Layers)
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Ration Manipulation
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia

System Summary

Feeding a combination of acidogens and indigestible cation exchangers reduces manure ammonia emission rates by sequestering ammonium in the manure. Average reductions of up to 68% have been noted in production environments. Reduced levels of ammonia in the production environment improve bird and worker health, reduces bird mortality, and improves productivity.

 

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Ammonia emissions are reduced through the use of alternative feed components.
  • The technology is suitable for use in any layer housing system.
  • Mitigation of manure ammonia emissions is due to a combination of reduced manure pH and cation exchangers present in the manure.

Limitations

  • Overfeeding acidogenic materials can adversely affect performance and productivity.
  • Effective levels of acidogens are typically well below the threshold level at which adverse effects would be noted.
  • No adverse effects due to overfeeding cation exchangers have been noted.
  • Cation exchange capacity, buffering capacity, and selectivity for ammonium are critical to the performance of this system.
  • Acceptable ratios of acidogen to cation exchanger depend on acidogen pKa and cation exchanger buffering capacity.

 

Cost

Suitable acidogens and cation exchangers are available in the marketplace. Gypsum/zeolite blends are commercially available as a pre-mix. Implementation of gypsum/zeolite blends depends on feed bin availability, while admixing sodium bisulfate and either zeolite or humate can be done through a microbin system.

Per-ton feed costs are increased when the system is utilized, but increased feed costs are more than offset by reduced hen mortality, improved feed conversion and egg production, and reduced per-dozen production costs.

 

Authors

E. Carroll Hale III
Earth Net LLC Point of Contact:
admin@usedi.com

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

Characterizing Ammonia Emissions from Swine Farms in Eastern North Carolina – Part II. Potential Environmentally Superior Technologies for Waste Treatment

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Swine
Use Area: Manure Storage
Technology Category: Other Treatments
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia, Odors, Pathogens

System Summary

The need for developing environmentally superior and sustainable solutions for the management of animal waste is vital for the future of animal farms in North Carolina, the U.S. and the world. In addressing that need, the North Carolina Attorney General initiated the development, implementation, and evaluation of environmentally superior swine waste management technologies (ESTs) that would be appropriate to each category of hog farms in North Carolina. This study focuses on the emissions of nitrogen in the form of NH3 from different components/processes involved in hog waste handling and treatment, including waste storage lagoons, hog houses, and spray fields at eight selected EST sites.

A flow-through dynamic chamber system and two sets of open-path FTIR spectrometers measured NH3 fluxes continuously from water holding structures and emissions from housing units at the EST and conventional LST sites. In order to compare the emissions from the water-holding structures at the ESTs with those from the lagoons at the conventional sites under similar conditions, a statistical-observational model for lagoon NH3 flux was used. A mass balance approach was used to quantify the emissions. All emissions were normalized by nitrogen excretion rates.

Six of the eight ESTs that contained an anaerobic lagoon as part of the system did not substantially reduce ammonia emissions and therefore require additional technical modifications to be qualified as unconditional EST relative to ammonia emissions reductions. Two of the eight ESTs did not contain an anaerobic lagoon component. Both of these farms showed substantial reductions in NH3 emissions from their water-holding structures. Under the conditions reported herein these two potential ESTs meet the criteria established for ammonia emissions as described for ESTs.

 

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Differs for each of the ESTs

Limitations

  • Differs for each of the ESTs

Cost

Is different for each of the ESTs (range is approximately $90-400 reported as 10 year annualized cost ($ per 1000 lbs. steady state live weight per year).

 

Authors

V.P. Aneja1, S.P. Arya1, I.C. Rumsey1, C.M. (Mike) Williams21Department of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences North Carolina State Univesity, 2 Department of Poultry Science, & Director, Animal and Poultry Waste Management Center, North Carolina State University
Point of Contact:
Viney P. Aneja, viney_aneja@ncsu.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

Characterizing Ammonia Emissions from Swine Farms in Eastern North Carolina – Part I. Conventional Lagoon and Spray Technology for Waste Treatment

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Swine
Use Area: Manure Storage
Technology Category: Anaerobic Lagoon, Management
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia

System Summary

The conventional lagoon and spray technology (LST), is the current system predominantly used in North Carolina to manage pig waste. It consists of anaerobic lagoons to store and biologically treat pig waste (~99.5% liquid). Effluent from the lagoons is sprayed on surrounding crop fields as a nutrient source. Four distinct components and associated processes of LSTs release NH3 to the atmosphere: (1) production houses, (2) waste storage and treatment systems such as lagoons, (3) land application through injection or spraying, and (4) biogenic emissions from soils and crops

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Anaerobic lagoons used to store and biologically treat hog manure
  • Manure sprayed on crops as source of nutrients

 

Limitations

  • Significant emissions of ammonia, odor and potential pathogens
  • Flooding during extreme weather events

 

Cost

Ten year annualized costs for a “Baseline” LST for a 4,320-head finishing farm using a pit recharge system of manure removal is predicted to be approximately $90 per 1,000 lbs. steady state live weight per year (Williams, 2006. see Table 8a, page 58 – Development of Environmentally Superior Technologies. 2006. Phase 3 Technology Determination Report, published by NCSU College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 716 pgs, on file with NCSU Animal and Poultry Waste Management Center (March 8,2006). Also available at www.cals.ncsu.edu/waste_mgt/

Authors

V.P. Aneja1, S.P. Arya1, I.C. Rumsey1, C.M. (Mike) Williams21Department of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences North Carolina State Univesity, 2 Department of Poultry Science, & Director, Animal and Poultry Waste Management Center, North Carolina State University
Point of Contact:
Viney P. Aneja, viney_aneja@ncsu.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

Management of Dairy Operations to Prevent Excessive Ammonia Emissions

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Dairy
Use Area: Animal Housing, Manure Storage
Technology Category: Management
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia

System Summary

Ammonia emissions data from open-lot and hybrid (combination of free-stalls and open-lots) dairies in the milder climate of southwest US indicated that summer emissions from these facilities were nearly 50% higher than winter emissions. Due to their large surface areas, lagoons and open-lot corrals were the highest contributors of NH3 emissions but little NH3 was emitted from lagoons during the winter months. Within open-lot corrals and free-stalls, NH3 emissions increased with greater manure loading and actively composting manure emitted considerable NH3 even during winter months. While reduction in dietary N intake is known to reduce manure nitrogen content, no information on technologies to mitigate NH3 emissions from these two types of dairy operations is available. Management practices such as frequent removal of manure from heavily loaded areas of open-lots and free-stalls, proper management of lagoons and other manure storage structures, summer irrigation of lagoon effluent during cooler temperatures, and where possible, incorporation or injection of effluent will help reduce excessive NH3 emissions. While frequent scrapping of targeted open-lot corral areas can be achieved without substantial increase in costs, covering lagoons to reduce NH3 emissions will be a very expensive mitigation practice.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Ammonia volatilization rate from dairy manure and processes generated waste water exposed to the environment depends upon total ammonium concentration, pH, moisture content, air velocity, temperature etc.
  • The management practices apply to mitigation of excessive NH3 emitting from open-lot corrals, lagoons, and free-stall surface of dairy operations
  • Existing dairy waste management practices can be adopted to reduce excessive NH3 emissions from critical sites at the dairy operation and during effluent irrigation during summer season

 

Limitations

  • Lack of excess fresh or recycled water for frequent flushing
  • Lack of extra storage capacity of retention control structures (RCS) to store additional flushed effluent.
  • Terminating or relocating the composting system out of the dairy operation

 

Cost

Increased frequency of flushing will require more fresh or recycled water as well as a higher storage capacity of an existing RCS or building a new one, adding higher costs to implement this practice. Another substantial cost may be covering large storage and treatment structures such as anaerobic lagoons to reduce NH3 emissions.

Authors

Saqib Mukhtar, Atilla Mutlu, Shafiqur Rahman
Texas A&M University System
Point of Contact:
Saqib Mukhtar, mukhtar@tamu.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

RAPP Technology for Control of Gas and Odor from Swine Manure Pits

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: Manure Storage
Technology Category: Chemical Amendment
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Odors, Ammonia, Carbon Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide

System Summary

This gas and odor reduction technology, Rapp Technology, consists of an oil cover and a neutralizer that is an alkaline solution. The laboratory study in swine manure reactors to simulate deep manure pit demonstrated statistically significant reductions of ammonia, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and odor from the treated reactors. Compared with previously tested commercial manure additives, this technology is more effective in mitigating gas and odor emissions from simulated deep manure pits.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • The oil cover is added at initial application. It floats on the surface of the manure slurry to slow the releases of gases and odorous molecules while allowing excrement to pass through.
  • The neutralizer solution is injected beneath the oil cover periodically. It neutralizes the volatile fatty acids and phenols in the slurry to their ammonium salts. Such salts are more prone to stay in the aqueous slurry because they are more water-soluble and less volatile than the original acids.

 

Limitations

  • The oil cover is not suitable for applying on the manure on the barn floors.
  • The effect of neutralizer on emission reduction could not be differentiated from the effect of oil cover in the lab test.
  • Future high quality field studies are needed.

Cost

During the lab test, the oil and the neutralizer (both by Custom Formulating & Blending, Bristol, IN) cost $1.13 and $ 0.67 per reactor, respectively. According to Juergens Environmental Control (Carroll, Iowa) for field application of the neutralizer, the fixed cost of the system for 1000 to 8000-pig finishing operations averages $2.50 – $5.00 per pig per 3-year term (shipping and labor not included). The cost of neutralizer operation averages $ 0.01 per pig per day over one year.

Authors

Ji-Qin Ni1, Sam Hanni1, Albert J. Heber1, Warren M. Kosman2, Gary Rapp3, 1Purdue University, 2Valparaiso University, 3Juergens Produce and Feed Company
Point of Contact:
Gary Rapp, garyrapp@westianet.net

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.

Proudly powered by WordPress