Tag: animal air quality

Posted on

Effects of Aluminum Sulfate and Aluminum Chloride Applications to Manure on Ammonia Emission from a High-Rise Layer Barn

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 (Layer)
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Chemical Amendment
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia

System Summary

The effectiveness of aluminum sulfate (alum, Al2(SO4)3) as a litter amendment in poultry houses has been recognized in several studies. Emission rates of ammonia (NH3) were measured at two 169,000-hen high-rise layer barns in Ohio, for six months. The tests were conducted to evaluate baseline and mitigated emission rates. An alum and aluminum chloride (AlCl3) spraying system was installed in the treated Barn 2. Concentrations of NH3 were measured at the barn exhaust fans and in incoming air, using real-time NH3 analyzers. Temperatures, relative humidity, barn static pressure, and fan operation were also measured.

The average daily mean untreated net NH3 emission rate was 480 g/d-AU (1.35 g/d-hen), where AU is an animal unit or 500 kg (1100 lb) of bird weight. The alum and AlCl3 applications reduced NH3 emission by 23% based on the overall cross-barn comparison of paired emission differences between barns. The NH3 mitigation efficiency of the Al2(SO4)3 application was compromised by clogged nozzles, manure turning, and introduction of a new flock of hens. Higher reductions of 33, 23 and 40% were achieved during later test periods. The application of AlCl3 in the last test was expected to further reduce NH3 emission, but the reduction was only 27%. The lower NH3 emission reduction efficiency of AlCl3 was probably due to higher moisture content of manure in Barn 2.

 

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Aluminum sulfate and aluminum chloride can lower manure pH and reduce ammonia emission
  • A 3000-gal tank stored the chemicals, and spray tubes and sprinkling nozzles were installed along the barn length
  • Solutions were automatically sprayed every hour, for a total of 24 times per day

 

Limitations

  • The nozzles were easily clogged when spraying aluminum sulfate
  • The additional chemical solution increased manure moisture content, especially in cold weather, thus reducing its effectiveness
  • The spraying system requires training to operate and maintain
  • The chemicals were acidic and corrosive
  • Manure on second floor was untreated.

Cost

The costs of the alum and AlCl3 were $0.13/L and $0.14/L, respectively, without delivery charges. At each delivery, 5678 L (1500 gal) of alum or AlCl3 was first added into the holding tank, and an equal volume of water was added to produce a 50% solution. The field records showed that five deliveries worth $3700 of alum were used in 85 days, or $44 per barn per day. The automatic spray controller cost about $3000, and the doubled-wall holding tank was $6500. A single wall tank would be less expensive. The labor to maintain the controller, air and water pumps is estimated at 3 hours per week per barn. The air pump provided the pressure for spraying, and the water pump filled the spray pipe with the solution.

Authors

Teng Teeh Lim1, Chaoyuan Wang2, Ji-Qin Ni1, Albert J. Heber1, and Lingying Zhao31Purdue University, 2 China Agricultural University, 3
Ohio State University Point of Contact:
Teng Teeh Lim, limt@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

Technologies for Mitigating Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions from Animal Agriculture

Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Center:

Home Page

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.

Technologies for Hydrogen Sulfide Mitigation in Animal Agriculture

Posted on

Microbial Additives to Reduce Ammonia Emission from Poultry Houses

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

System Summary

Use of Bacterial products (Bacillus based) such as Micro Treat P and Provalen has demonstrated to effectively reduce litter ammonia emissions in broiler, layer and turkey production systems. It has been known that gram negative bacteria in the litter and fecal matter break down the nitrogen and convert to ammonia as result of their growth and multiplication. It is also been known that certain bacteria have the property to help in reduce gram negative bacteria in the litter and droppings there by retaining nitrogen in the litter and fecal matter. Micro Treat P is a proprietary product designed and produced by Agtech Products, Inc. This is added to the poultry litter. Provalen is a bacillus based feed additive designed for layers.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Gram negative bacteria are highly prevalent in poultry litter and waste.
  • These Gram negative bacteria convert uric acid in the poultry waste to make harmful ammonia.
  • Application of Micro Treat P and Provalen lowers the gram negative counts in the litter and poultry waste.
  • The reduction in Gram Negative bacterial population helps in nitrogen retention and reduced ammonia production.

Limitations

  • It is a long term ammonia reduction tool.
  • The mode of action of microbial litter amendments are cumulative in nature and do not accomplish a quick ammonia reduction like chemicals.

Cost

MicroTreat P comes foil packs and is concentrated for convenient use. The application rate is based on type of poultry and fecal material produced. Typically the treatment costs are as follows: Broilers $0.005 per bird, Turkeys $0.055 (40 pound tom) and $0.028 (16 pound hen). The cost to treat layers feeds with Provalen is approximately $2.00/ ton.

Authors

Daniel Karunakaran
Agtech Products, INC. Waukesha, WI
Point of Contact:
Dr. Daniel Karunakaran, dkarunakaran@agtechproducts.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

Technologies for Mitigating Greenhouse Gases from Animal Agriculture

Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Center:

Home Page

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.

Technologies for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Mitigation in Animal Agriculture

Posted on

Using Klasp™ to Reduce Poultry Housing Ammonia Emissions

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 (Broiler and Turkey)
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Chemical Amendment
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia

System Summary

Klasp™ has been shown to be an effective litter amendment for minimizing ammonia concentrations, decreasing litter moisture, and sequestering nitrogen and phosphorous. Klasp™ efficiently lowers litter pH while providing a drier house environment. Klasp™ is effective in reducing and holding in-house ammonia levels below 25ppm during the first 14 days of grow-out leading to providing an improved bird environment and improved bird performance.

Application rates of Klasp™ are dependent on management practices and needs. Typical rates will range from 34 to 56 kilograms per 93 m2 (75-125 lb/1000 ft2). The length of ammonia emission control increases with increasing application rate (Ritz et. al, 2007). Heat is not required to activate Klasp™ prior to bird placement. This mode of activation provides producers application flexibility and improved time management by allowing the product to be applied up to 4 days prior to bird placement.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • NH3 volatilization from litter is dependent on pH, moisture content, air velocity, NH4 concentration, and temperature.
  • Klasp™ applications reduce litter pH and lowers NH3 emission
  • Litter pH affects NH3 volatilization
  • Klasp™ may be applied to the litter before bird placement

Limitations

  • Moisture is needed to activate Klasp™, as a result, extremely dry houses may influence performance
  • Applications rates will depend on current management practices and needs, along with seasonal temperatures
  • Application costs are subject to the proximity of the producer to the chemical distributor

Cost

Cost is dependent on several factors. The producer’s proximity to the chemical distributor, application rate, and use cycle of KlaspTM will contribute to the final per house cost.

Authors

Lance Reeder and Victor Johnson
Kemira
Point of Contact:
Lance Reeder, lance.reeder@kemira.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

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

Pennsylvania’s Odor Siting Index

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

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

System Summary

The Pennsylvania Siting Index was developed in response to specific state legislation (PA Act 38 of 2005) in an effort to objectively evaluate locations for new or expanding regulated animal operations, then develop an Odor Management Plan to reduce the potential for community conflict from building and manure storage odors. The goal is to construct livestock operations where community odor conflict potential is minimized. Data from the site and site map are entered into the index and the resulting score indicates the complexity of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that must be adopted for a producer to develop the site. Scores of less than 50 index points do not require BMPs. Scores from 50 to 99.9 index points require “Level 1” BMPs, which are generally standard, industry-accepted practices. Scores greater than 100 points require more costly and complicated “Level 2” BMPs. The index cannot be used to prevent an individual from constructing an operation, nor is it used to mitigate specific air emissions.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Required for new and expanding regulated animal operations in Pennsylvania.
  • Objectively scores sites on a numerical scale.
  • Encourages producers to locate animal operations on sites with a low risk of community odor conflict.
  • Requires odor-reduction Best Management Practices if the index score is high.
  • Requires approved Odor Management Plan and annual operation inspection.

Limitations

  • The index does not measure odors or gasses, nor assess effectiveness of BMPs.
  • Weighting of index scores is based on limited data.
  • Producers may not be required to implement BMPs when the number of surrounding homes is minimal, even if those homes are relatively close to the animal facility.
  • The index does not account for future development around an animal operation.
  • Potential for inversion odor conflict is not included in the index.

Cost

The Pennsylvania State Conservation Commission estimates the cost to producers will be approximately $1120 for an index and associated odor management plan. BMP installation and maintenance would vary, depending on BMP complexity. If producers choose a site with an index score of <50 points, BMPs would not be required thus erasing all BMP costs.

Authors

Robert Mikesell1, Karl Dymond2, 1Penn State Department of Dairy and Animal Science, 2 Pennsylvania State Conservation Commission
Point of Contact:
Robert Mikesell, rem9@psu.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

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.

Proudly powered by WordPress