Tag: animal housing

Posted on

Sustainable Dairy Production Housing / Manure System: Compost Bedded Loose Housing Dairy Barn


What Are Compost Bedded Dairy Barns?

In the U.S., the first compost bedded loose housing (CBP) dairy barns were developed by Virginia dairy producers in the 1980’s to increase cow comfort and longevity.  The key component of a CBP dairy barn is a large, open resting area generally bedded with sawdust or dry, fine wood shavings that is tilled to support aerobic composting. Studies in Minnesota in the early 2000’s built a knowledge base which researchers in Kentucky have utilized during the past 5 years  as the foundation for our research and extension activities on the CBP barns, herds housed within them, and assessing compost fertility. CBP barns fit within goals of sustainable agriculture for dairies with less than 500 lactating cows because of benefits to the cow (space, rest, exercise, and social interaction – Videos 1 & 2), the farmer (low investment, labor-extensive, reduced manure storage costs with composted manure under roof), milk production (milk quality, milk yield), and the environment (reduced ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions, odor and dust emissions, reduced energy consumption, improved manure fertility and flexibility to meet nutrient management plans).  Operator experiences and research results of completed and on-going CBP barn projects are presented. 

What we did

Our first activity was to assess the existing CBP barns in KY to establish the reasons for success. Fifty-five known existing CBP dairy barns in KY were visited from September 2010 to March 2011 to determine the management, barn construction details and management factors that lead to successful operation and herd improvements. Five areas of research were subsequently identified. Critics have expressed concerns about mastitis risks in barns.  Environmental mastitis has been the main concern due to the bacterial load in the CBP barn compost. A study was conducted of mastitis incidence and milk Somatic Cell Count (SCC) of CBP barns relative to “gold standard”, sand bedded free stall barns. Dairymen also wanted to have more certainty of the compost nutrient value for land application. A study was initiated to determine N and P in compost and their release for plant uptake during the first year. For one year, bed data for temperature, moisture, nutrient content by depth, and barn climate were collected to understand the seasonal climatic effects on the compost bed and how quickly these effects are seen. Finally, bed tillage, using cultivators or rototillers, was evaluated for effects on bed performance.

What we learned

Facility design, ventilation, timely addition of fresh, dry bedding, frequent and deep stirring, and avoidance of overcrowding are the keys to a good working CBP barn. Poor management may lead to very undesirable compost bed conditions, dirty cows, elevated SCC, and increased clinical mastitis incidence. Most Kentucky dairy producers listed increased cow comfort and welfare as the main benefit to the CBP barn system, while others cited increased cow cleanliness, low maintenance nature of the system, and the barn’s usefulness for special needs and problem cows. Evaluation of annual bed performance data led to development of new compost bed management strategies. Instead of using the hygiene score for cows or bed temperature, moisture content was viewed as the primary measure since it was a leading indicator of the bed before failure. The time between a good performing bed and a poor performing bed was a matter of days when the moisture content exceeds 60% – wb. The comparison of CBP barns to sand bedded freestall barns validated producers’ observations of comparable SCC and mastitis incidence prevalence in CBP barns. Finally, CBP compost added to soil differs in P dynamics depending on soil test P level. In Low Soil Test P (STP) soils the CBP tended to slowly mineralize, and like inorganic P fertilizers, was subject to adsorption. In High STP soil, P in compost was first adsorbed, but then slowly released with time.

Future plans

  1. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modeling of the compost bed management and barn design alternatives for demonstration to dairymen for planned and existing facilities.
  2. Effect of Rapid Eye Movement (REM) sleep on cow health, production and comfort.
  3. Mastitis incidence as affected by microbial ecology of the cow udder and compost bedded pack.
  4. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and economic analysis of system: milk production, barn, and compost disposal.

Authors

Joseph L Taraba, Extension Professor, Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington KY – joseph.taraba@uky.edu. 859.218.4353.

Jeffery M Bewley, Associate Extension Professor, Animal Food Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington KY

George B Day, Adjunct Instructor, Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington KY

Mark S Coyne, John H. Heick Professorship, Plant and Soil Sciences; University of Kentucky, Lexington KY

Michael Sama, Assistant Professor, Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington KY

Randi A Black, PhD Graduate Student , Animal Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville TN

Flavio A Damasceno, Professor (Associate), Departamento de Engenharia, Universidade Federal de Lavras, Lavras, MG – Brasil

Elizabeth A Eckelkamp, Graduate Research Assistant, Animal Food Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington KY

Leslie A Hammond, Graduate Research Assistant , Plant and Soil Sciences; University of Kentucky, Lexington KY

John Evans, Graduate Research Assistant, Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington KY

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2015. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Seattle, WA. March 31-April 3, 2015. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Wet Scrubbers for Cleaning Air Emissions from Animal Housing Curriculum Materials

Air emissions from animal housing systems are being examined more closely for ways to mitigate potentially harmful gases. Wet scrubbers are one way to remove pollutants from air being exhausted from mechanically ventilated buildings.  The materials on this page were developed to assist educators and professors who include wet scrubbers as a topic in their classrooms or educational programs.

Fact Sheets

Roderick B. Manuzun and Lingying Zhao, The Ohio State University; Allison Jonjak, Nebraska

LPES Curriculum Lessons

Technology Summaries

Figure 1. A prototype wet scrubber developed by the Ohio State University for a deep-pit swine facility. Photo courtesy of Lingying Zhao, Ohio State.

This is from a 2008 conference hosted by Iowa State University

Acknowledgements

These materials were developed by the Air Quality Education in Animal Agriculture (AQEAA) project with with financial support from the National Research Initiative Competitive Grant 2007-55112-17856 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

For questions about the materials on this page contact Dr. Linying Zhao, Ohio State University (zhao.119@osu.edu). For questions about the AQEAA project, contact Dr. Rick Stowell, Unviersity of Nebraska (rstowell2@unl.edu).

If you have presentations, photos, video, publications, or other instructional materials that could be added to the curricula on this page, please contact Dr. Zhao or Jill Heemstra (jheemstra@unl.edu).

Posted on

Efficacy of Vegetative Environmental Buffers to Mitigate Emissions from Tunnel-Ventilated 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 (Broiler and Turkey)
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Environmental Barriers
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Dust, Ammonia, Odor

System Summary

Emissions of dust, gases and odor from poultry facilities pose major challenges for the poultry industry worldwide. Cost-effective technologies to abate emissions from modern tunnel-ventilated poultry houses are limited. In 2002 a three-row planting of trees was installed opposite two, 1.2 meter (4 ft) diameter tunnel fans to evaluate vegetative environmental buffers (VEB) as a means of mitigating emissions from the poultry house. The first row, 9.1 meters (30 ft) from the fans was 4.8 meter (16 ft) high bald cypress, followed by 4.3 meter (14 ft) high Leyland cypress and the outer most row of 2.4 meter (8 ft) high Eastern red cedar. Over the next six years the efficacy of these trees to reduce total dust, ammonia and odor was determined. Measurements were taken at 1.2 meter (4 ft) height on 47 days during peak fan operation with market-age broilers. The relative change in concentration across this 6.7 meter (22 ft) wide vegetative buffer found the VEB significantly reduced total dust, ammonia and odor by 56%, 54% and 26%, respectively. Meteorological conditions and the type of crop next to the VEB appeared to influence the efficacy of vegetation to reduce odor. Dust and ammonia concentration was influenced by these factors to a lesser degree. This suggests the use of trees as vegetative filters may offer a long-term, cost-effective means of partially abating emissions from houses. The local poultry industry trade association for the Delmarva Peninsula has hired a coordinator to implement tree plantings around farms to help abate emissions and to be proactive in addressing increasing neighbor-relations concerns.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Certain plants have the ability to absorb ammonia and capture particulates
  • Vegetation also acts as a sink for chemical constituents of odor
  • A properly designed windbreak aids in dispersion and dilutions of odors as well as reducing wind speed
  • A VEB planting has multiple goals; abate emissions, improve neighbor-relations, and provide shade and shelter of the house

Limitations

  • Growers need technical assistance on the proper design, implementation and care of VEB that is tailored to the unique features of each operation
  • Retrofitting a farm with VEB to capture emissions from all fans is difficult.
  • Species of tree and proper implementation influences time required for VEB to become effective in reducing emissions
  • VEB is a practical and multi-purpose BMP to partially abate emissions.

 

Cost

Average cost for implementing a VEB on an existing broiler farm is ~$5,500. Cost range from $1,500 for a limited one-row planting to provide a visual screen of the farm, and up to $12,000 for multi-row plantings around the outside perimeter of the poultry houses. There is limited information on design and efficacy of VEB plantings between houses. Locally, cost-share programs have provided support to cover most of the costs associated with implementing this program. Plantings to address neighbor-relations have been a driving factor in VEB establishment. An estimated 1/3 of all poultry farms have established VEB on the Delmarva Peninsula. A VEB is also a requirement for a new house loan from one of the major lending institutions.

Authors

George Malone1, Gary VanWicklen1, Stephan Collier1
1University of Delaware
Point of Contact:
George Malone, malone@udel.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

Practical Partial Biofiltration of Swine Exhaust Ventilation Air

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Swine
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Biofilter
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Odor, Ammonia

System Summary

The mitigation technique discussed is to utilize biofiltration for a portion of swine barn ventilation air. The portion mitigated is that portion of air emitted into stable atmospheres. Stable atmospheres have poor vertical mixing potential and therefore gases and odors emitted tend to remain close to the earth’s surface and can therefore be sensed at longer distances downwind. It is impractical to mitigate all of the exhaust ventilation air required in swine housing. Techniques are needed that apply odor and gas mitigation to a portion of the ventilation air stream, when receptors might experience an odor event. Additionally, many barns incorporate combinations of fans and curtains (i.e. hybrid ventilated) to supply required ventilation air. Any mitigation strategy applied to barn ventilation air must be able to accommodate these hybrid ventilation systems as well.

Ventilation air exhausted during the heat of summer days is exhausted into an atmosphere that is, for the vast majority of times, very unstable providing excellent and natural mixing potential near the building source. In more stable atmospheres, typically present during the evening hours, biofiltration of a critical minimum amount of ventilation air (i.e. partial biofiltration) would reduce ammonia and odor emissions during those times when the potential for odor plumes to travel long distances is greatest. The overall effect would be a more attractive biofiltration strategy that maximizes ammonia and odor reduction potential when most needed.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Biofiltering of a critical minimum amount of ventilation air
  • Applies mainly to hybrid ventilated swine finishing facilities
  • Can be used as an odor “impact based” mitigation strategy

Limitations

  • Requires fan ventilation of barns up to about 81 m3/h-pig (48 ft3/min-pig)
  • Biofilter applications apply added stress to the ventilation system
  • Biofilters require ample water supply to keep the biofilter media in the 50-60% range

Cost

The biofilter application presented in this research required $4,959 for biofilter supplies and equipment including four new biofilter fans (300-head pig finishing room). Biofilter supplies, equipment, and construction labor resulted in a total implementation cost of $6,759 or $22.53/pig space. The added energy to operate the biofilter fans resulted in an additional $0.42/pig-produced.

Authors

Steven J. Hoff1, Jay D. Harmon1, Lide Chen1, Kevin A. Janni2, David R. Schmidt2, Richard E. Nicolai3, Larry D. Jacobson21Iowa State University, 2 University of Minnesota, 3South Dakota 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

Effects of Dietary Manipulation on Ammonia Emissions

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Swine
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Diet Modification
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia

System Summary

Dietary manipulation, such as lowering crude protein with amino acid supplementation or fiber addition, is an effective method to decrease ammonia emissions from swine finishing facilities. Lowering crude protein content of the diet with amino acid supplementation markedly reduces nitrogen excretion. In studies conducted for the entire finishing period (Bundy et al., 2008; Lachmann et al., 2007), lowering crude protein content by 3 percentage units with amino acid supplementation decreases total nitrogen excretion by approximately 30% and ammonium nitrogen concentration of the slurry by 37%. The decrease in nitrogen excretion reduces the concentration of ammonium in the slurry which in turn decreases ammonia emission. Results suggest a reduction in ammonia emission of up to 50% with the use of a low protein diet. Additionally, the reduction in ammonium concentration of the slurry also reduces slurry pH which affects ammonia volatilization. Addition of fiber sources to the diet reduces urinary urea excretion which can be degraded enzymatically to ammonia. Fiber addition affects nitrogen excretory patterns and reduces ammonium nitrogen concentration of the slurry which can lead to further reductions in ammonia emissions. The reduction in crude protein content or addition of fiber sources to swine diets can reduce or change nitrogen excretion patterns resulting in marked decreases in ammonia emissions for pigs housed in facilities with shallow pit, pull-plug waste storage systems.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • NH3 emissions from swine housing is dependent on the amount of nitrogen excreted
  • Swine typically excrete 30 to 50% of the nitrogen consumed
  • Reducing dietary crude protein with amino acid supplementation can markedly decrease nitrogen excretion
  • Addition of fiber sources to diets also has potential to influence nitrogen excretion patterns
  • These dietary manipulations can markedly decrease ammonia emissions from swine finisher facilities

Limitations

  • Correct estimation of the amino acid requirements of the pig is critical
  • Accurate supplementation of amino acids is critical to reduce risk on growth performance and carcass traits
  • Nutrient content of fiber sources is needed for diet formulation
  • Upper limits to crude protein reduction and fiber addition in diets
  • Cost of amino acid supplementation and use of nutritionist in formulation

Cost

The costs associated with dietary manipulation are solely dependent upon ingredient cost assuming growth performance and carcass traits are not adversely affected. Formulation of low protein diets involves the partial removal of soybean meal from the diet accompanied by replacement with corn and crystalline amino acids (lysine HCl, DL-methionine, L-threonine). Therefore, evaluation of implementation cost weighs the decrease in soybean meal costs versus the increase in corn and amino acid costs within the diet. Using March 2008 ingredient costs, diet costs for a conventional corn-soybean meal based diet and a low protein (-3%), amino acid supplemented diet are similar. Thus, assuming no difference in growth rate or feed intake, cost of gain and total feed cost for the finishing period are similar. Dietary costs need to be re-evaluated with changing ingredient costs.

Authors

Scott Carter, Mariela Lachmann, Justin Bundy; Oklahoma State University
Point of Contact:
Scott Carter, scott.carter@okstate.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

Methane Emissions from Dairy Cattle

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
Technology Category: Diet Modification
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Methane

System Summary

There are a large number of options that can potentially be used to mitigate methane emissions from dairy cattle. The basic result of using these approaches is an improvement in the efficiency of nutrient use in the animal and increased productivity. Methane emissions per unit of milk produced will decrease as a result of these changes. An important component is continuing to improve forage quality. Higher quality forages have higher digestibility in the cow and less methane emissions than lower quality forages. A second approach is to better balance the diet protein and carbohydrate fractions to improve the efficiency of both rumen fermentation and feed nutrient use. Methane emissions will be reduced as a result. There are also opportunities to provide specific feed additives to decrease methane emissions from the cow. Their use is currently limited due to lack of data to demonstrate their efficacy in lactating dairy cows. Ionophores are one feed additive that does have data indicating improved feed efficiency and decreased methane emissions.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

Potential mitigation options include:

  • Improved forage quality
  • Rations balanced to improve efficiency of rumen fermentation
  • Use of ionophores in rations

Limitations

  • Many options will require some financial investment
  • Management changes may be needed
  • Requires a systems approach
  • Feed additives that could be helpful in reducing methane emissions have not been tested in animal trials
  • Cost to benefit ratio cannot be defined for many practices that could be use

Cost

The cost of practices that could be implemented on a dairy farm to reduce methane emissions will be highly farm specific. Each farm will need to evaluate the available mitigation options to determine the best choices for their situation. The costs for implementation will also vary between farms due to differences in their current cost structures. The initial benefits to the farm will be improved efficiency of animal production, efficiency of nutrient use and improved profitability.

Authors

Larry Chase, Cornell University
Point of Contact:
Dr. L.E. Chase, lec7@cornell.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 Sodium Bisulfate in Reducing Emissions from Dairy Cow Slurry

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
Technology Category: Amendment (chemical)
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia, Methanol and Ethanol

System Summary

Sodium bisulfate may provide an effective management practice for the reduction of alcohols and ammonia emissions from dairy housing conditions. Application of sodium bisulfate (Parlor Pal) has been demonstrated to be effective in the mitigation of both ammonia and alcohols (methanol and ethanol) emissions from fresh dairy slurry. Ammonia emissions decrease with increasing levels of SBS treatment. Methanol and ethanol emissions also decrease with an increase in the amount of SBS applied.

Product should be applied to dairy drylots with a fertilizer spreader twice per week at a rate of 50 – 75 lb/1000 ft2 for control of ammonia, methanol, and ethanol emissions. However, SBS should not be spread evenly but rather topical around highly frequented cow areas (feed bunk, water troughs). Studies conducted at the University of California at Davis (UCD) showed reduction of ammonia of 61% from fresh manure. Application to enclosed drylots at UCD showed reductions of methanol and ethanol of 15-30%.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Emission of gaseous ammonia and alcohols from fresh slurry is dependent on pH, temperature, microbial activity and etc.
  • Bedding/surface manure pH is important factor for controlling NH3 volatilization
  • Application of SBS lowers pH of slurry and as a result reduces ammonia, methanol, and ethanol fluxes
  • Reduction in pH reduces bacterial population

Limitations

  • Sodium bisulfate must be applied consistently to manure to maintain constant emission reduction as the substance looses its effectiveness over time
  • In locations that are sensitive to salt or areas with existing high salt loading in soils, applications of SBS should be considered with care because sodium is on of its components
  • SBS is a mineral acid. Appropriate measures, as defined by the chemical supplier, should be used during the handling of SBS

Cost

Bulk cost of product delivered to the farm is $660.00/ ton. Application at 50 – 75 lb / 1000 ft2 2X / week equates to costs of between $33.00 – $49.50 / 1000 ft2 / week. Treatment of heavy use areas, approximately 30% of the total pen area, reduces total pen cost by 70%. Cost / cow assuming 4 cows / 1000 ft2 of pen area would be $2.48 – $3.71 / week treating only the heavy use areas.

Authors

Kim Stackhouse1, Jeffrey McGarvey2, Yuee Pan1, Yongijing Zhao1, Huawei Sun1, Wendi A. Jackson1, Lisa M. Nuckles1, Irina L. Malkina1, Veronica E. Arteaga1, and Frank M. Mitloehner 1University of California, Davis, 2 USDA-ARS, Albany CA
Point of Contact:
Frank Mitloehner, fmmitloehner@ucdavis.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

Effectiveness of Litter Treatments for Reduction of Ammonia Volatilization in Broiler Production

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

System Summary

Recently, poultry producers have come under increased regulatory scrutiny regarding the amount and type of emissions exhausted from poultry housing during the course of normal house ventilation. Ammonia and dust have both been discussed as potential problems with poultry house exhausts. Using a litter treatment will have a direct effect on improving litter management, nutrient enrichment, and reducing ammonia volatilization from poultry house litter. Recent research completed in the Department of Poultry Science at Auburn University has focused on a series of experiments to evaluate six litter treatment strategies in reducing ammonia volatilization during broiler production.

Poultry Litter Treatment (PLTTM), granulated aluminum sulfate (Al-ClearTM) (GA), Poultry GuardTM (PG), and Hydrated Lime (HL), were applied at 24.4, 48.8, or 73.2 kg/100 m2 (50, 100, or 150 lbs/1000ft2); liquid aluminum sulfate (A-7TM) (LA), was applied at 81.4, 162.8, or 227.1 L/100m2 (20, 40, or 60 gals/1000ft2); and concentrated sulfuric acid (98% H2SO4) (SA) was applied at 9.75, 19.50, or 29.26 kg/100m2 (20, 40, or 60 lbs/1000ft2) on new pine sawdust bedding and tested against a non-treated control (CON). With the exception of lime, all agents were designed to reduce litter pH to control ammonia. Results show that increased levels of litter treatments can extend their ammonia control usefulness and most worked well with the exception of lime. In these experiments, ammonia levels were often controlled at the intermediate and highest level of application for 35 to 42 days. If more strict environmental regulations are put into effect regarding ammonia emissions from poultry facilities, litter treatments may become an important technique to allow producers to remain compliant.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Reductions in litter pH will effectively reduce ammonia volatilization
  • Acidifying treatments performed longer at higher levels of application
  • Lime application failed to produce any favorable results
  • Litter treatment usage is an important management tool for suppressing ammonia emissions and contributing to bird health

Limitations

  • Most litter treatments loose their effectiveness within 21 days when applied at low levels, but this can be extended if higher rates of application are employed
  • Acidifying litter treatments can be corrosive to handle
  • Costs of litter treatment are variable and attributed to distribution and marketing logistics

Cost

Delivered cost of a litter treatment is highly dependent upon transportation costs and competitive pricing offered among manufacturers and distributors. Also, costs for transporting, handling, and applying dry versus liquid products should also be considered. Due to the competitive nature of pricing among litter treatment products it is difficult to provide a reasonable and consolidated cost for the treatments tested in these experiments. However, it can be concluded that low levels only provide ammonia control during the brooding period (maybe for 3 weeks); whereas higher application rates will extend the effective period for ammonia control, but the producer must balance the cost of applying a higher level of litter treatment with benefits associated with longer ammonia control.

Authors

J.P. Blake, J.B. Hess, and K.S. Macklin, Department of Poultry Science, Auburn University
Point of Contact:
John P. Blake, blakejp@auburn.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

Odorgon: Overhead Spray System to Neutralize Odors

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
Technology Category: Chemical Amendment
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia, Hydrogen Sulfide, Odors

System Summary

Odorgon is a water based formulation that is applied in confined animal feeding operations through a high pressure mist system. Odorgon is sprayed on an automated timer basis from the ceilings through high pressure nylon lines and nozzles to neutralize malodors.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Unique class of cationic surfactants
  • Atomized solution sprayed at 600 psi
  • Buffer resulting in non volatile organic salts
  • Greatly reduces ammonia & hydrogen sulfide
  • Creates better environment for animals to thrive in resulting in lower mortality, less culls and less days to finish.
  • Better conditions for workers/employees
  • Mitigates neighbor/social issues

Limitations

  • Water based, subject to freezing
  • Summer use may be curtailed in

open buildings during windy conditions

Cost

Equipment cost for a 42 by 200 foot finishing building with all components installed is approximately $4900. Annual usage for this facility would average $2100 of Odorgon concentrate or .73 per animal unit but could vary with region/climate. Nursery cost for swine is .19 per animal unit. Odorgon is mixed with water at a rate of 50 parts water to 1 part concentrate resulting in a cost of $1.50 per gallon diluted. Cost also varies based on building dimensions and desired results.

Authors

Steve Opheim, VP Klean Air Inc.
Point of Contact:
Ron Hamilton, rrhamilto@aol.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

Atomization Treatment to Improve Air Quality in a Swine Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO)

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
Technology Category: Other Treatment
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Particulate Matter (PM), Viable Bacteria, Ammonia

System Summary

Juergens Environmental Control Systems are designed to reduce particulate matter (PM), viable bacteria and ammonia and utilizes a high pressure atomization solution. Treatment consists of a formulation comprising proprietary proportions of corn oil, citric acid, ethyl alcohol, eucalyptus, vanilla and water. The formulation was developed to reduce airborne PM and ammonia through short- and long-term mechanisms. The short-term mechanisms include oil encapsulation through electrostatic attraction and coagulation. Long-term reductions occur through the suppression of dust re-suspension. Citric acid is added to neutralize gaseous ammonia. Alcohol helps dry the atomized aerosol and serves as an adjuvant so that formulation components are in complete suspension. Vanilla is added providing a deception for the olfactory senses, and eucalyptus for its respiratory medicinal property. Final formulation is atomized for 5 seconds, six times a day at a pressure of 235 psi (1620 kPa) and a rate of 45 mL/m2. The nozzles are located on the ceiling at 5 or 10 foot centers for complete coverage of the treated area and were designed to produce an aerosol 1-10 ímin diameter under conditions of this formulation and pressure.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Atomization treatment is effective at swine housing systems, such as in finishing, breeding and gestation production systems.
  • The oil is in a water formulation that includes alcohol, citric acid, vanilla and eucalyptus to dry and help mix the atomization solution, neutralize gaseous ammonia, and provide a pleasant odor, respectively.
  • The oil formulation is applied under high pressure, yielding micron-sized charged particles that efficiently remove PM through electrostatic attraction and coagulation.

Limitations

  • Atomization treatment is effective at swine housing systems, such as in finishing, breeding and gestation production systems.
  • The oil is in a water formulation that includes alcohol, citric acid, vanilla and eucalyptus to dry and help mix the atomization solution, neutralize gaseous ammonia, and provide a pleasant odor, respectively.
  • The oil formulation is applied under high pressure, yielding micron-sized charged particles that efficiently remove PM through electrostatic attraction and coagulation.

Cost

Field application of the atomization system and solutions are subject to change. The fixed cost of the system for 1000 – 8000-pig finishing operation averages $1.96 – $7.79 per pig per 3 year term (shipping and installation labor not included). The cost of atomization operating averages $ 0.01 per pig per day over one year. The fixed cost of the system for 500-5000-sow operation averages $9.00 – $16.00 per sow per 3 year term (shipping and installation labor not included). The cost of atomization averages $.01 per sow per day over one year.

Authors

Peter E. Juergens1, Gary L. Rapp11Juergens Environmental Control
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