Tag: dairy cattle

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

A Review of Manure Injection to Control Odor and Ammonia Emissions During the Land Application of Manure Slurries

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, Dairy, Beef
Use Area: Land Application
Technology Category: Management (manure injection/incorporation)
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Odor, Ammonia

System Summary

Manure slurry injection provides a significant reduction in land application odor and ammonia emissions release when compared to conventional manure surface broadcasting. Release of odor and ammonia during land application can be reduced by more than 90% compared to conventional application methods (Ohio State University, 2007). Manure can be successfully injected in both conventional tillage and no-till systems with currently available equipment. Additionally, slurry tanker wagons currently used for broadcast application can also be retrofitted with Injection tool bars.

Research by Hanna et al., (2000) compared the odor and ammonia emissions from various types of manure injection techniques to slurry that was surface applied (broadcasted). Odor and ammonia tests were run for both fall and spring slurry application. Ammonia was below the detection limit (0.2 ppm) for all but two (measured at 0.6 and 1.3 ppm) of the 72 samples taken. Broadcast application required approximately four to five times more fresh air dilutions than injection to reach the odor threshold (the level at which the odor can no longer be detected) indicating much lower odor release associated with injection.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Injection tools create sub-surface cavities
  • Slurry is injected into the cavity directly behind the tool
  • Injection minimizes slurry exposure to air reducing odor and ammonia volatilization
  • Injection can be used with all slurry and liquid manures

Limitations

  • Injection systems are not currently commercially available for solid manures
  • Injection can require up to 30% more tractor horsepower than broadcast
  • Injection may not be desirable when the producer does not want the soil or crop root system disturbed (forages, pasture/sod)
  • Injection equipment requires more maintenance than broadcast equipment

Cost

Generally, injection is more costly than broadcast application. Injection requires more tractor horsepower and more equipment (injection tool bars). Because tool bars are pulled through the soil, wear and maintenance is greater with injection systems. Cost increases as application rate decreases and distance from the manure storage site increases. The increase in cost as application rate decreases is due to wear on the application equipment. At lower application rates, field speed is increased causing wear (and eventually maintenance) on the equipment to increase. At a 5,500 gallons per acre application rate, commercial drag hose injection cost is currently $.014/gal compared to $.0085/gal for broadcast (Puck, 2008).

Authors

Ross Muhlbauer1, Jeremy Puck2, Ben Puck2, Robert Burns1, 1Iowa State University, 2 Puck Custom Enterprises
Point of Contact:
Ross Muhlbauer, rmuhlbar@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

Effect on Residue Cover and Crop Yield of Manure Incorporation Equipment

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, Dairy, Beef
Use Area: Land Application
Technology Category: Management (manure injection/incorporation)
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Odor, Hydrogen Sulfide

System Summary

Injection or incorporation application treatments other than broadcast almost always reduce odor during and immediately after application and have a neutral or beneficial effect on crop yield. Although the amount of odor reduction among various injection and incorporation treatments may be similar, the level of surface residue cover reduction is different. For land areas where erosion is a concern operating an application system with no more than an appropriate amount of soil and residue disturbance should be strongly considered. Costs of using injection or incorporation equipment are on the order of $0.001 to $0.003 per gallon applied depending on the type of equipment and annual volume applied. Additional application costs for using injection or incorporation equipment even in the upper end of this range are typically not greater than the cost of a secondary tillage pass. The choice of injection or incorporation style should be strongly influenced by balancing the needs for odor control, residue cover maintenance, and fertilizer placement for the subsequent crop.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Odor is reduced with minimal soil contact
  • Residue cover protects soil prone to erosion
  • Tillage and fertility placement may be beneficial depending on conditions
  • Greater options on flatter fields

Limitations

  • Fragile residue cover is strongly affected by equipment type and usage
  • Reduced residue cover may accelerate erosion
  • Drawbar power required may be increased
  • Needs of odor control, erosion control, and fertilizer placement should be considered

Cost

Factors affecting costs include the initial cost of the application toolbar, annual usage rate, and increased tractor power requirement to pull the injection device. Calculated costs are associated with either a custom annual application volume of 20 million gallons or private application volume of 3 million gallons, 5- (custom) or 15- (private) year equipment life, and application with a double-disc or narrow knife system. Costs of using a double-disc or narrow knife application toolbar are in the range of $0.001 and $0.002 per gallon, respectively, for the higher-volume custom applicator example. Costs are $0.0015 and 0.003 per gallon, respectively, for the lower-volume private applicator example. Costs of using additional tractor power are roughly one-third to one-half of total costs at the smaller annual application volume, but over three-fourths of costs at the higher application volume. Diesel fuel was valued at $3 per gallon. If the pass of a field tillage implement is eliminated (e.g., strip tillage) because of application, costs of injection or incorporation may be balanced by savings in the cost of the tillage pass.

Authors

H. Mark Hanna1, Steven K. Mickelson1, Steven J. Hoff11Iowa State University
Point of Contact:
H. Mark Hanna, hmhanna@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 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

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

Effects of Waste Management Techniques to Reduce Dairy Emissions from Freestall Housing

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: Dairy
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Management
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Volatile Organic Compounds, Ethanol & Methanol

System Summary

Recent dairy emission research has identified alcohols (methanol and ethanol) as the major volatile organic compound (VOC) group originating from fresh waste (Shaw et al., 2007; Sun et al., 2008). Effective control of these alcohols from dairies will help the dairy industry meet regulatory standards, satisfy public concerns, and improve local and regional air quality. Enhancing industry typical freestall waste management practices, which currently are predominant practices like flushing and scraping of fresh waste, may provide a large impact on mitigation of oxygenated VOC emissions in a cost effective manner.

Our research has shown that flushing is more effective than scraping in reducing methanol (MeOH) and ethanol (EtOH) emissions from barns. Flushing three times daily versus scraping three times daily yields an emission reduction efficiency of 50% for both MeOH and EtOH. Furthermore, flushing frequency by itself significantly reduces emissions. A comparison of 3 times versus 6 times flushing daily showed decreased emissions by 79% for MeOH and 63% for EtOH.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Oxygenated VOC (e.g., alcohols MeOH and EtOH) are produced by fermenting microbes present in fresh waste
  • Frequent waste removal effectively mitigates MeOH and EtOH emissions from fresh waste
  • VOC alcohols are water-soluble and become effectively trapped in water when flushed
  • Flushing is more effective than scraping, and increasing flushing frequency further decreases VOC emissions

Limitations

  • Scraping methods leave a thin film of manure on concrete ground that continues to produce emissions

Cost

There is no cost associated with increasing the flushing frequency of a liquid manure handling system. Essentially, flushing frequency is increased, while the amount of water per flushing event is decreased. Since the water used to flush barns is recycled water from the lagoons, there is no cost to re-circulate lagoon water through the barn alleys.

Authors

M. Calvo, K. Stackhouse, Y. Zhao, Y. Pan, Ts Armitage, and F. Mitloehner, University of California, Davis
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

Gas Impermeable Film and Sheet for Control of Methane and Odors in Agricultural Applications

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, Dairy, Beef, Poultry
Use Area: Manure Storage, Manure Treatment
Technology Category: Covers
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Odors, Methane, Ammonia

System Summary

For many years, food packaging has incorporated barrier layers to contain odors, flavors, oils and moisture along with the food contents while excluding contamination and oxygen. Until recently, agricultural films and geomembranes were monolithic structures employing only a single polymer or blend. Recent advances in extrusion and lamination equipment allow the incorporation of these barrier layers in large scale agricultural structures and operations such as floating covers over animal waste storage, containment geomembranes for biogas generation, silage storage and fumigation films.

To view the video in full screen, click the icon second from right on the bottom of the viewer.
Download a copy of this video

Co-extruding a thin layer of ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH) in a linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) geomembrane dramatically reduces the permeability to a wide range of gases and volatile organic carbon molecules including: methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide, oxygen, aromatic hydrocarbons, aliphatic hydrocarbons, methyl bromide and most odorous compounds. Methane permeabilites for four geomembranes are given below.

Methane Permeability (cc/(m2*day))
PVC LLDPE HDPE Barrier LLDPE
0.76 mm (30 mils) 1.0 mm (40 mils) 1.0 mm (40 mils) 0.5 mm (20 mils)
900 690 300 <1

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Barrier to noxious gases and odors
  • Useful in cover and containment systems

Limitations

  • EVOH is a crystalline polymer and is not elastic. It is flexible but should not be used as part of an elastomeric structure.

Cost

Engineered floating covers with ballasted weight systems, gas extraction systems and rainwater removal systems costs vary greatly. For waste lagoon of about 1/2 acre in size, the cover system can cost from $150,000 to $200,000. Addition of the barrier layer to the geomembrane adds less than $5,000.

Authors

Gary Kolbasuk, Raven Industries, Engineered Films Division
Point of Contact:
Gary.Kolbasuk@Ravenind.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

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.

Posted on

Negative Air Pressure Cover for Preventing Odor Emission from Earthen Manure Storage

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: Covers
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Odors

System Summary

An impermeable synthetic cover system was developed by DGH Engineering in Manitoba, Canada for mitigating odor emission from earthen manure storage basins (EMSB). The system uses lightweight plastic as the cover so that it is affordable to producers. An air pumping system creates negative pressure between the cover and the manure surface to hold down the cover to ensure the cover is robust enough to withstand wind forces. The air pumping system consists of small exhaust fans (four to six fans of 50 – 70 L/s each) and perforated ducts placed about the EMSB perimeter. Odor emission from the NAP covered EMSB (due to the air pumping system) is negligible (1%) in comparison with the open EMSB. Additional benefits of the NAP cover system include the retention of manure nitrogen, thus increasing the fertilizer value of manure; isolating precipitation from the manure, thereby increasing storage volume; and reducing greenhouse gas (methane) emissions.

 

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Large surface areas of earthen manure storage basins emit large amount of odor to the atmosphere
  • A NAP cover forms a physical barrier between the manure surface and the atmosphere to prevent odor release into the atmosphere
  • The negative pressure between the cover and the manure surface holds the cover down to resist wind forces.

 

Limitations

  • When using traditional agitation and pump-out equipment, removing and replacing the cover for pump-out may increase the wear on the cover and add labor and time to the pump-out operation.
  • An air assisted agitation system should be used.

 

Cost

The capital cost varies from $10.00 to $15.00 per m², installed. The annual cost per pig marketed for typical 5,000 and 10,000 head swine finisher operations is estimated to be $1.40 and $1.13.

Authors

Q. Zhang1, D. Small 2
1University of Manitoba, 2 DGH Engineering
Point of Contact:
Doug Small, dgh@dghengineering.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

A Review of Permeable Cover Options for Manure Storage

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: Beef, Dairy, Swine
Use Area: Manure Treatment
Technology Category: Covers
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia, Odors, Hydrogen Sulfide

System Summary

Covers have been demonstrated to provide effective odor and air emissions control for manure storage structures. Impermeable covers made from flexible synthetic materials provide excellent odor and emissions control, but typically have a high capital cost requirement. Permeable covers provide an alternative to impermeable synthetic covers. Permeable covers will typically not provide as great a level of odor control as impermeable covers, but the initial capital cost is lower. Permeable covers do not require gas or rain water collection systems since gases are allowed to migrate through the cover and rainwater will infiltrate through the cover into the storage. Permeable covers have been successfully constructed from a variety of materials including straw, light weight expanded clay aggregate (LECA), ground rubber and geotextile materials. Materials such as straw, have a short lifespan (from two to six months depending on manure solids content and rainfall levels), while materials such as LECA have been shown to remain viable for more than ten years. Various permeable cover materials have been shown to reduce odor from 40% – 90%, and to reduce ammonia from 40% to 80% depending on permeable cover material and depth.

 

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Permeable covers provide a layer on the manure surface that shields the manure surface from contact with the air
  • Most permeable cover materials provide an aerobic zone in the cover material that will help control odor
  • No gas or water collection systems are required since both gases and rain water will pass through the permeable cover material
  • Some permeable cover materials such as straw provide a short-term solution, while other like LECA can last more than ten years

 

Limitations

  • Some permeable cover materials (such as straw) have very short effective lives (2 – 6 months)
  • Long-term permeable cover materials (such as LECA) can have costs near those of synthetic impermeable covers
  • If a permeable cover material sinks into the stored manure, it must be dealt with during land application
  • Rainwater volume must be accounted for in the manure storage since direct precipitation will infiltrate into the manure storage

A permeable straw cover on an earthen manure storage structure.

Cost

Permeable covers can provide reductions in odor, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions from manure storage facilities. A wide variety of organic and manmade materials have been utilized to construct permeable covers with variable results and costs ranging from $0.10 to $1.75 per square foot installed. Straw is the least cost permeable cover material with an approximate cost of $0.10 per square foot installed. Longer lasting materials such as LECA have installed costs that can exceed $1.00 per square foot installed. Permeable cover materials are typically floated on the stored manure surface and can provide an aerobic zone that manure gases must pass through when released. Permeable covers can be used with earthen, concrete and steel manure storage systems and with slurry manures generated by swine, dairy and beef animals.

Lightweight expanded clay aggregate (LECA) cover on a concrete swine manure storage tank.

Authors

Robert Burns and Lara Moody, Iowa State University
Point of Contact:
Robert Burns, rburns@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.

Proudly powered by WordPress