Tag: animal housing

Posted on

Reducing Ammonia Emissions from Poultry Litter with Alum

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

Aluminum sulfate (alum) additions to poultry litter have been shown to reduce ammonia concentrations in and emissions from poultry rearing facilities. Adding alum to litter also decreases phosphorus runoff. There are three types of alum can be used in poultry houses; dry, liquid and high acid liquid alum (this paper focuses on dry alum). Typically alum is not applied to fresh bedding material, but added to used bedding prior to each subsequent flock. Ammonia levels in poultry houses receiving alum have been shown to be reduced by over 75% for the first two weeks of the flock, 50% the third week, and 20-30% thereafter. However, the exact length of time that ammonia is controlled is dependent on the rate of alum application, with higher rates resulting in better ammonia control. Recommended rates of alum vary from 0.045 to 0.09 kg/bird. However, these rates were based on broilers weighing 1.82 kg (4 lbs) at market age. Recently, more companies are growing larger broilers, which result in higher manure production and more ammonia emissions. Hence, for large birds the final market weight of the bird should be considered, with the corresponding range in alum application rates being 0.025 to 0.05 kg alum/kg bird. Alum application rates will be dependent on the desired length of time ammonia is controlled and whether or not controlling P runoff is desirable. Rates of 0.09 kg/bird have been shown to control ammonia for six weeks, while 0.045 kg/bird only controls ammonia for three weeks. Other benefits of alum include heavier birds, better feed conversion, lower condemnation, and reduced propane use during cooler months as a result of lower ventilation needs. Crop yields are also higher with alum-treated litter because of higher nitrogen content. Phosphorus, heavy metal and estrogen runoff are also reduced when litter is treated with alum, improving water quality.

 

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • NH3 volatilization from litter is dependent on pH, moisture content, air velocity, NH4 concentration, and temperature
  • Litter pH is an important factor for controlling NH3 volatilization
  • Alum applications reduce litter pH and suppresses NH3 emissions
  • Alum is applied to the litter before birds are placed

 

Limitations

  • Alum looses its effectiveness with time
  • Since alum begins working as soon as applied, birds should be placed 2-5 days after application
  • Dry alum results in dusty conditions during application; dust masks and goggles should be worn
  • The material has a low pH and can be corrosive to handle
  • Cost of alum is variable, dependent upon proximity of the production facility to the supplier

Cost

The cost of alum is dependent upon both the chemical cost, the proximity of the production facility to the supplier, and the charge made by a third party to apply it (if applicable). In the economic evaluation made by Moore et al. in 1999, the cost of alum was $0.26/kg alum applied ($0.12/lb), which was equivalent to $480 for a 1459 m2 house (16,000 ft2) treated with 1816 kg alum(4000 lb). Savings to the grower and integrator from lower propane and electricity use, heavier birds, improved feed conversion and lower condemnation totaled $940, resulting in a benefit cost ratio of 1.96. As a result of these benefits, currently 700-800 million chickens are grown with alum each year.

Authors

Philip Moore1, Dana Miles2, Robert Burns21USDA Agricultural Research Service, 2 Iowa State University
Point of Contact:
Philip Moore, philipm@uark.edu

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

Posted on

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

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

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

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

System Summary

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

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

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

Limitations

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

Cost

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

Authors

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

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

Posted on

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.

Posted on

Reducing H2S, NH3, PM, & Odor Emissions from Deep-pit Pig Finishing Facilities by Managing Pit Ventilation

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 (maybe Dairy and Poultry)
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Management
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Odor, Hydrogen Sulfide, Ammonia, Particulates (PM10)

System Summary

A recent study determined that a large majority (75 to 80 %) of the total NH3 and H2S emissions from a 2000-head tunnel-ventilated deep-pit pig-finishing barn for 45 days during August and September 2004 were emitted from the pit exhaust stream even though only 20 to 30 % of the total barn’s ventilation air was being provided by pit fans. This information allows producers with deep-pit facilities to strategically utilize catch and treat emission control technologies, such as biofilters, ONLY on pit fans airstreams that would result in large reductions (>50%) in the emissions of hazardous gases, odor, and particulate matter by treating only a small portion of the total ventilation air (figure 1). Another follow up study found that emissions of certain pollutants, may be reduced slightly (10 to 20%) by simply eliminating pit fans altogether for a deep-pitted pig building.

The phenomenal of a majority of the barn’s airborne pollutants being emitted by pit fans, may also be true for other swine production phases or for even other species (dairy and poultry) housed in deep pit facilities. This would mean that emission reductions of >50 % for certain pollutants are potentially possible when emission control technologies like biofilters are strategically placed on large emitting pit fan sources in deep-pit buildings. If only small reductions (<20%) of certain pollutants are needed, this maybe accomplished by the elimination of pit fans altogether.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Pit Fan(s) airstreams contain a majority of the critical airborne pollutants (NH3, H2S, PM10, odor) from deep-pitted pig buildings
  • If biofilters are strategically used on pit exhaust air, sizable (>50%) emission reductions of some pollutants are possible for either existing or new deep-pit facilities

Limitations

  • Information only available presently for deep-pit pig finishing barns but anticipated similar results for other swine plus dairy and poultry housed in deep-pit buildings
  • Valid for NH3, H2S, odor, and certain PM fractions, not known if greenhouse gases will also be concentrated in the pit fan exhaust air of deep-pit facilities

Cost

There is no additional cost of this “technology” since a well-designed and operating ventilation system is required in any animal facility and especially in a deep-pitted pig building. There actually may be a cost saving if producers decided to install no or only a limited number of pit fans instead of the standard number for the livestock industry which is approximately 20% of the total barn’s ventilation system. A cost savings is often realized since the installation of pit fans is typically more expensive than wall fans plus pit fans have higher maintenance requirements and are more frequently in need of replacement.

Authors

Larry D. Jacobson1, Brian P. Hetchler1,David R. Schmidt11Bioproducts & Biosystems Engineering, University of Minnesota
Point of Contact:
Larry D. Jacobson, jacob007@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.

Proudly powered by WordPress