Tag: dairy cattle

Posted on

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

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

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

System Summary

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

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

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

 

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Differs for each of the ESTs

Limitations

  • Differs for each of the ESTs

Cost

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

 

Authors

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

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

Posted on

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

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

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

System Summary

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

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

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

 

Limitations

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

 

Cost

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

Authors

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

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

Posted on

Management of Dairy Operations to Prevent Excessive Ammonia Emissions

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

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

System Summary

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

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

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

 

Limitations

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

 

Cost

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

Authors

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

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

Posted on

A Surface Aeration Unit for Odor Control from Liquid Swine Manure Storage Facilities

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, Poultry
Use Area: Manure Storage
Technology Category: Aeration
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Odors

System Summary

A surface aeration system composed of an aerator module with six venturi air injectors has been demonstrated to effectively reduce odor level (measured by odor detection threshold) emitted from an operating swine manure anaerobic lagoon. Past research reports have shown that partially aerating manure can reduce the power consumption by up to 80% as compared to full aeration, while still achieving satisfactory odor amelioration. Data from this project provide further evidence that it is not only feasible but also affordable for animal producers to consider using this technology to control odor. A reduction in odor detection threshold by about 67% was achieved after the surface aeration system started operation in the test lagoon for about 10 days. It was also observed that the aeration treatment could maintain a dissolved oxygen level of 0.3 mg/L in the top lagoon liquid and the aerated layer worked like a biological cover that had the capability of destroying the odorous compounds passing through it. Although the surface aeration technology presented in this paper is tested in swine manure lagoons, it is expected that the technology can also be applied to manure lagoons of other animal species such as dairy and poultry. As a matter of fact, there are already experiments being carried out on a poultry lagoon in Texas using the same aeration apparatus, the results from which will be compared with those presented here. It is anticipated that the aeration system will be available to animal producers in the near future.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • The surface aeration system can be applied to any open liquid manure storage facilities
  • Odorous compounds are intermediate products during anaerobic digestion and, without treatment, they will be emitted into air causing odor problems
  • Aeration is to provide oxygen to the aerobic microorganisms in the liquid so that they can actively decompose these odorous compounds
  • Surface aeration establishes a biological cover in which aerobes use the provided oxygen to clean up the odorous materials before they reach the air

 

Limitations

  • This technology is not suitable for in-barn manure storage structures such as deep pits
  • Since the surface aeration system is placed outdoors, the ambient temperature should always be above freezing point so the technology cannot be used in northern states of the country in winter.
  • Ammonia emission from the lagoon liquid under treatment may be increased due to increased pH in the liquid and the mixing effect

 

Cost

The capital cost of this surface aeration system is relatively inexpensive and all the venturi air injectors are commercially available (under $200/each). For a one-acre lagoon, the equipment cost including materials and installation may be anywhere between $10,000 and $15,000 and the running cost (for a 4.5 horsepower pump running 24 hours a day, 365 days a year) will be 4.5 hp x 0.75 kW/hp x 24 h/day x 365 day/year = 29,565 kWh. Assuming the price per kWh being at $0.07, the total annual cost for the operation will be 29,565 kWh x $0.07 = $2,070. Considering the particular lagoon receiving manure from 4,000 head finishing pigs and 2.5 production cycles a year, the treatment cost per pig marketed is only around 21 cents.

Authors

Jun Zhu1, Chunying Dong1, Cutis Miller1, Liang Wang1, Yecong Li1, Saqib Mukhtar21University of Minnesota, 2 Texas A&M University
Point of Contact:
Jun Zhu, zhuxx034@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

Water Requirements for Dust Control on Feedlots

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
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Facility Management
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Dust, Odor

System Summary

Feedlot dust contributes to cattle illness along with potential non-attainment of PM10 emission standards in localized areas of North America. Increasing the surface moisture content decreases the potential for entrainment of PM10 particles during evening cattle activity resulting in improved cattle health and attainment with air quality standard. Individual feedlots vary in capacity, pen density and overall area necessitating educational outreach efforts including one-on-one technology transfer. A computer model was developed to enable feedlot owners to evaluate their particular facilities including the potential water requirements and cost of mitigating dust and other air emissions. The water requirement is estimated based on initial soil moisture, desired final moisture content, surface coverage area, soil wetting depth, sprinkler efficiency and application time. These parameters are used to estimate well capacity, main and branch water pipe size, number of wetting zones based on sprinkler head capacity, application time and nozzle requirements. Pumping requirements are based on application rate, pump efficiency and total head losses. Operational costs are based on an initial investment in the system along with pumping cost. This results in a total cost per head per month based on the fixed and variable cost.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Design sprinkler package for open lot dust control
  • Economic analysis of the dust control system
  • Spreadsheet based model – easy to use
  • Provides quick evaluation of when inputs parameters are varied
  • Estimates daily water requirements per head for dust control

Limitations

  • Results dependent on input parameters
  • Assumes water application is uniform
  • Assumes initial cost of installation of a sprinkler package is known
  • Adequate water availability for dust control

Cost

The cost of dust control on open feedlots ranges from $0.60 to $2.40 per marketed head. The cost of the infrastructure of the sprinkler system or water application equipment is reduced with increases in feedlot capacity or marketed head per year. The fixed cost represents 60 to 80 percent of the annual cost. The variable costs are dependent on the days per year necessary for attainment of PM10 emissions from open feedlots or earthen dry lots commonly found in the High Plains region of the North America.

Authors

Joseph Harner 1, Ronaldo Maghirang1, Edna Razote11Kansas State University
Point of Contact:
Joseph Harner, jharner@ksu.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 Air Emissions in Dairy 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.

Air Mitigation Technologies for Dairy Production

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

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