hydrogen sulfide – Page 2 – Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Community

March 5, 2019March 25, 2019

Effect of Feeding Distiller’s Grains on Reduced Sulfur Emissions

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Why Study Sulfur Emissions and Manure from Animals Fed Distillers Byproducts?

Odorous reduced sulfur compounds are produced during manure decomposition and emitted from confined animal feeding operations. Feeding high-sulfur distiller’s byproducts may increase the emission of these compounds. The objectives of a series of feedlot pen studies was to (i) determine if emissions of reduced sulfur compounds from fresh manure and from the feedlot surface where affected if cattle were fed varying levels of distillers byproducts, and (ii) determine the areas within a pen that emit greater amounts of reduced sulfur compounds.

Study #1–Relative emission of redued sulfur compounds from fresh feces. Cattle fed diets containing 0%, 20%, 40%, and 60% WEGS.

What Did We Do?

Three studies were conducted to evaluate the relative impact of feeding high-sulfur wet distiller’s grain plus solubles (WDGS) to beef cattle. In the first study, beef cattle in sixteen small-scale pens were fed varying amounts (0%, 20%, 40%, and 60%) of WDGS, and the relative emissions of reduced sulfur from fresh feces were measured using a laboratory wind tunnel chamber. A follow up study in eight production-scale feedlot pens also examined the effect of feeding 0% or 40% WDGS on fresh manure emissions. A third study in ten production-scale pens examined emissions from the pen surface when cattle were fed 0% and 40% WDGS diets over two production cycles.

Study #2–Relative emission of reduced sulfur compounds from feces of cattle fed 0% or 40% WDGS. P values above bars indicate the significance of the difference between emissions on the four dates.

What Have We Learned?

The relative emission of reduced sulfur from fresh feces was significantly greater (4 to 22-fold) when 40% (or greater) WDGS was fed in the initial study. The follow up study confirmed this finding, but found the relative emission to be lower (2 to 4 fold higher for WDGS) in the production-scale feedlot. In the final study examining the relative emission from the whole feedlot pen surface (mixed soil and aged feces) over many months, emissions principally came from the wetter edges of the pen when animal were fed higher levels of WDGS in their diet. For the six study periods, the relative emissions from WDGS pens ranged from 0.3 to 4-fold higher than a standard ration. Consistent results from these three studies indicate that reduced sulfur emissions increase when animals are fed higher levels of WDGS.

Study #3–Relative concentration of total reduced sulfur (TRS) in the chamber for each of the seven study periods. An asterisk above the bars indicates a significant difference (P < 0.05) between diets.

Future Plans

The level of sulfur in WDGS varies depending upon source and production method. Feeding lower sulfur WDGS should reduce the relative emission of odorous reduced sulfur compounds. Production of the reduced sulfur compounds may also be related to water quality—some water sources high in sulfur may enhance the emission of reduced sulfur from animal production sites. Further research into the mechanism of reduced sulfur production may provide new insights into controlling the emissions of these odorous compounds.

Authors

Daniel N. Miller, Research Microbiologist, USDA-ARS, Lincoln, NE, dan.miller@ars.usda.gov

Mindy J. Spiehs, Research Animal Scientist, USDA-ARS, Clay Center, NE

Bryan L. Woodbury, Agricultureal Engineer, USDA-ARS, Clay Center, NE

Additional Information

Miller, D. N., V. H. Varel, B. L. Woodbury, and M. J. Spiehs. 2010. Enhanced reduced sulfur emission from manures of beef cattle fed distiller’s byproducts. International Symposium on Air Quality and Manure Management for Agriculture Conference Proceedings, 13-16 September, Dallas, Texas. 711P0510cd.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the technical expertise of Todd Bowman, Alan Kruger, and Ryan McGhee. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

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. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Feeding Distillers Grains and Reduced Sulfur Emissions from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019March 26, 2019

Inhibition Of Total Gas Production, Methane, Hydrogen Sulfide, And Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria From In Vitro Stored Swine Manure Using Condensed Tannins

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

Management practices from large-scale swine production facilities have resulted in the increased collection and storage of manure for off-season fertilization use. Odor produced during storage has increased the tension among rural neighbors and among urban and rural residents, and greenhouse gas emissions may contribute to climate change. Production of these compounds from stored manure is the result of microbial activity of the anaerobic bacterial populations present during storage. We have been studying the bacterial populations of stored manure to develop methods to reduce bacterial metabolic activity and production of gaseous emissions, including the toxic odorant hydrogen sulfide produced by sulfate-reducing bacteria. Quebracho and other condensed tannins were tested for effects on total gas, hydrogen sulfide, and methane production and levels of sulfate-reducing bacteria in in vitro swine manure slurries. Quebracho condensed tannins were found to be most effective of tannins tested, and total gas, hydrogen sulfide, and methane production were all inhibited by greater than 90% from in vitro manure slurries. The inhibition was maintained for at least 28 days. Total bacterial numbers in the manure were reduced significantly following addition of quebracho tannins, as were sulfate-reducing bacteria. These results indicate that the condensed tannins are eliciting a collective effect on the bacterial population, and the addition of quebracho tannins to stored swine manure may reduce odorous and greenhouse gas emissions.

Why Would We Want to Inhibit Gas Production of Stored Manure?

Develop methods for reducing odor and emissions from stored swine manure.

What Did We Do?

Tested the effects of addition of condensed tannins to in vitro swine manure slurries on production of total gas, hydrogen sulfide, methane, and on the levels of hydrogen sulfide-producing sulfate reducing bacteria.

What Have We Learned?

Addition of condensed tannins to in vitro swine manure slurries reduces production of total gas, with quebracho condensed tannins being the most effective. 0.5% w/v Quebracho condensed tannins reduced total gas, hydrogen sulfide, and methane by at least 90% over a minimum of 28 days. Levels of sulfate reducing bacterial were also significantly reduced by addition of the tannns. This technique should assist swine producers in lowering emission and odors from stored manure.

Future Plans

We are interested in scaling up the testing to on-farm sites and also testing the tannins for reducing foaming from manure storage pits.

Authors

Terence R. Whitehead, Research Microbiologist, USDA-ARS-National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, Peoria, IL 61604, terry.whitehead@ars.usda.gov

Cheryl Spence, USDA-ARS-National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, Peoria, IL 61604

Michael A. Cotta, USDA-ARS-National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, Peoria, IL 61604

Additional Information

Whitehead, T.R., Spence, C., and Cotta, M.A. Inhibition of Hydrogen Sulfide, Methane and Total Gas Production and Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria in In Vitro Swine Manure Slurries by Tannins, with Focus on Condensed Quebracho Tannins. (2012) Appl. Microbiol. Biotech. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00253-012-4562-6/fulltext.html

Development and Comparison of SYBR Green Quantitative Real-Time PCR Assays for Detection and Enumeration of Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria in Stored Swine Manure. (2008) J. Appl. Microbiol. 105: 2143-2152. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2008.03900.x/pdf

USDA-ARS-NCAUR Bioenergy Research Unit Home Page: http://ars.usda.gov/main/site_main.htm?modecode=36-20-61-00

March 5, 2019March 26, 2019

Combination of Borax and Quebracho Condensed Tannins Treatment to Reduce Hydrogen Sulfide, Ammonia and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Stored Swine Manure

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Abstract

Livestock producers are acutely aware for the need to reduce gaseous emissions from stored livestock waste and have been trying to identify new technologies to address the chronic problem. Besides the malodor issue, toxic gases emitted from stored livestock manure, especially hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and ammonia (NH3) are environmental and health hazards for humans and animals and under scrutiny by the Environmental Protection Agency for regulatory control of concentrated animal farm operations (CAFOs).

These odorous and toxic gases are produced by bacteria during the fermentation of the stored manure. Sulfate reducing bacteria convert sulfate (SO4) to sulfide (H2S) during the fermentation. During storage of swine manure, about 60% of NH3 nitrogen is also loss. If NH3 loss can be prevented, the fertilizer value of swine manure would improve and reduce the need for additional commercial nitrogen fertilizer.

There are very few technologies available to reduce H2S, NH3 and greenhouse gas emissions from stored livestock manure, which meet the criteria of being: inexpensive, safe for farmers and animals, and environmentally sustainable. Previous research has shown that borax and quebracho condensed tannin are effective in inhibiting H2S production in stored swine manure. The present research demonstrates that a combination of borax and quebracho condensed tannin is highly effective in reducing all gaseous emissions (H2S, NH3, CO2, CO, N2O and CH4) and in retaining more nitrogen in swine manure. Lesser amounts of borax and quebracho condensed tannin are needed when combined to achieve a similar reduction in H2S production to using much larger amounts of either product alone.

Phytotoxicity studies show that the level of tolerance of crops to borax-tannin combination treated swine manure is: alfalfa > corn > wheat > soybean >> dry beans. Quebracho condensed tannin does not appear to be toxic to crops.

Why Study Tannins?

Develop methods for reducing emissions from stored swine manure.

What Did We Do?

Tested the effects of addition of combinantions of borax and quebracho condensed tannins to swine manure slurries on production of gaseous emissions and more retaining nitrogen in the manure.

What Have We Learned?

Addition of various combinations of borax and quebracho condensed tannins to swine manure slurries was highly effective in reducing all gaseous emissions (H2S, NH3, CO2, CO, N2O, and CH4) and in retaining more nitrogen in swine manure. Lesser amounts of borax and tannin are needed when combined to achieve a similar reduction in H₂S production to using much larger amounts of either product alone. Phytotoxicity studies show that the level of tolerance of crops to borax-tannin combination treated swine manure is: alfalfa > corn > wheat > soybean >> dry beans.

Future Plans

We are interested in transferring this research to on-farm sites.

Authors

Melvin Yokoyama, Professor, Dept. of Animal Science, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI 48824, yokoyama@msu.edu

Terence R. Whitehead, Research Microbiologist, USDA-ARS-National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, Peoria, IL 61604

Cheryl Spence, USDA-ARS-National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, Peoria, IL 61604

Michael A. Cotta, USDA-ARS-National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, Peoria, IL 61604

Donald Penner, Dept. of Crops and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI 48824

Susan Hengemuehle, Dept. of Animal Science, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI 48824

Janis Michael, Dept. of Crops and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI 48824

Additional Information

USDA-ARS-NCAUR Bioenergy Research Unit Home Page: http://ars.usda.gov/main/site_main.htm?modecode=36-20-61-00

March 5, 2019August 13, 2019

Manure management and temperature impacts on gas concentrations in mono-slope cattle facilities

Waste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Why Study Air Emissions from Mono-slope Beef Barns?

Mono-slope buildings (Figure 1) are one type of roofed and confined cattle feeding facility that is becoming increasingly popular in the Northern Great Plains. However, little is known about the impact of these housing systems and associated manure management methods on the air quality inside and outside the barn. The objective of this study was to determine gas concentrations in mono-slope beef cattle facilities and relate these concentrations to environmental and manure management factors.

Figure 1. View of a monoslope cattle facility from the northeast. Adjustable curtains in the rear (north) wall are used to limit airspeed through the barn during colder weather.

What Did We Do?

Four producer-owned and operated beef deep-bedded mono-slope facilities were selected for monitoring. Two barns maintained deep-bedded manure packs (Bedpack), whereas two barns scraped manure and bedding from the pens weekly (Scrape). Each site was monitored continuously for one month each quarter for two years to capture both daily and seasonal variations. At each facility, the environment-controlled instrument trailer and associated equipment were located adjacent to the barn. The trailer contained: a gas sampling system (GSS) that consisted of Teflon tube sample lines connected to a computer-controlled sampling manifold, gas analyzers, computer, data acquisition system, calibration gas cylinders, and other supplies. In addition to the sampling lines, there were environmental instruments to measure the airflow and weather conditions for two pens in each barn. The analyzers and sensors used are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Analyzers and sensors used for air quality and environmental monitoring

Ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and methane concentrations were sequentially sampled from two south wall locations and three north wall locations per pen. The maximum hourly mean concentrations measured at the north or south wall of either pen in the barn were used in this analysis. The seasonal average hourly means of maximum concentrations and corresponding environmental variables were calculated.

What Have We Learned?

Figure 2. Seasonal averages of maximum hourly mean ammonia (a), hydrogen sulfide (b) and methane (c) concentrations for the bedpack and scrape manure management systems monitored in four monoslope cattle facilities, as influenced by ambient temperature.

The seasonal average hourly maximum ammonia concentration ranged from 0.6 to 3.3 ppm with the Scrape barns and from 0.2 to 7.1 ppm with the Bedpack barns (Fig 2a). The range of maximum hydrogen sulfide concentrations was 0 to 61 ppb in the Scrape barns and 0 to 392 ppb in the Bedpack barns (Fig 2b). The maximum methane concentration ranges were 4.9 to 10.6 and 3.1 to 15.8 ppm in the Scrape and Bedpack barns, respectively (Fig 2c). There are indications of differences between gas release rates for bedpack and scrape manure management systems and increased release rates with temperature for ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. Methane concentrations were more consistent between systems and for different temperature conditions.

This project expands the knowledge base of gaseous concentrations from deep-bedded beef barns. This integrated project also provides management techniques that producers can implement to minimize emissions, and improve air quality.

Future Plans

Emission values will be calculated using these concentration data, in conjunction with airflow data, which also varies with site and temperature conditions.

Authors

Erin L. Cortus, Assistant Professor, South Dakota State University, erin.cortus@sdstate.edu

Md Rajibul Al Mamun, Graduate Research Assistant, South Dakota State University

Ferouz Y. Ayadi, Graduate Research Assistant, South Dakota State University

Mindy J. Spiehs, Research Animal Scientist, USDA ARS Meat Animal Research Center

Stephen Pohl, Professor, South Dakota State University

Beth E. Doran, Extension Beef Program Specialist, Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Kris Kohl, Extension Ag Engineer Program Specialist, Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Scott Cortus, Engineering Research Technician, South Dakota State University

Richard Nicolai, Associate Professor (Retired), South Dakota State University

Additional Information

Mono-slope air quality research project website
Design and management of mono-slope barns (archived webcast)
Introduction to mono-slope cattle facilities

Acknowledgements

Project funded by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant no. 2010-85112-20510 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Technical assistance provided by Alan Kruger, John Holman, Todd Boman, and Bryan Woodbury.

Manure management and temperature impacts on gas concentrations in monoslope cattle facilities from LPE Learning Center

March 5, 2019October 21, 2019

Biofiltration: Mitigation for Odor and Gas Emissions from Animal Operations

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
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Biofilter
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Hydrogen Sulfide, Ammonia, Methane, Volatile Organic Compounds, Odors

System Summary

A biofilter is simply a porous layer of organic material, typically wood chips or a mixture of compost and wood chips, that supports a population of microbes. Odorous building exhaust air is forced through this material and is converted by the microbes to carbon dioxide and water. The compounds in the air are transferred to a wet biofilm that grows on the filter material where microorganisms breakdown the odorous compounds.

Biofiltration can reduce odor and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emissions by as much as 95% and ammonia by 65%. The method has been used in industry for many years and was recently adapted for use in livestock and poultry systems. Biofilters work in mechanically ventilated buildings or on the pit fans of naturally ventilated buildings. Biofilters can also treat air vented from covered manure storage.

Two configurations of biofilters are being used to treat exhaust air from swine buildings: a horizontal media bed and a vertical media bed. Horizontal biofilters require more land area but are less expensive than vertical biofilters. Horizontal beds can be shallow (< 0.45 m) or deep (> 0.75 m).

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

Key factors influencing biofilter size and performance:

time the odorous gases spend in the biofilter
volume of air treated
moisture content of the filter material
sizing the biofilter media volume
selecting fans capable to push the air through the biofilter
choosing biofilter media

Limitations

Biofilters are only effective when there is a captured air stream
Media moisture content effects the biofilter performance, i.e. dry media results in poor odor reduction
Media porosity is related to the fan’s ability to move air through the biofilter. If media is less than 50% porosity most agriculture ventilation fans will not perform satisfactorily

Cost

Costs to install a biofilter include the cost of the materials—fans, media, ductwork, plenum—and labor. Typically, cost for new horizontal biofilter on mechanically ventilated buildings will be between $150 and $250 per 1,700 m3/hr (1,000 cfm). A vertical biofilter is approximately 1.5 times the cost of a horizontal biofilter. Annual operation/maintenance of the biofilter is estimated to be $5-$10 per 1,700 m3/hr (1,000 cfm). This includes the increase in electrical costs to push the air through the biofilter and the cost of replacing the media after 5 years.

Authors

R.E. Nicolai¹, K.J. Janni², D.R. Schmidt²¹South Dakota State University, ²University of Minnesota
Point of Contact:
Richard Nicolai, richard.nicolai@sdstate.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.

March 5, 2019May 7, 2019

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

March 5, 2019August 14, 2019

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

March 5, 2019October 21, 2019

Significant Odor Reduction from a Highly Efficient Micro-ecosystem based on Biofiltration

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: Biofilter
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia, Hydrogen Sulfide, Particulate Matter, Odor

System Summary

Odor Cell Technologies LLC manufactures odor filtration technologies that attach to the exhaust ventilation of CAFO’s. These odor cells are approximately 1.2 m (4 feet) square hollow cubes with porous side walls filled with pine bark that vary in thickness depending upon the cfm and actual run-time of each stage of ventilation. Internal and external hydration is provided to the cells by a uniquely designed irrigation system controlled by timers and sensors. Odor cells utilize the principles of physical entrapment, water chemistry and microbial activity to dramatically improve air quality in and around agricultural and industrial facilities. Using the proven odor reducing principles inherent to composting, the organic odorous particles are entrapped, activated with moisture and attacked biologically at the point source. This allows naturally occurring bacteria to break down and cleanse gases and odors commonly found around these facilities. Odor Cell Technologies LLC‘s patented process creates a “micro-ecosystem” that significantly reduces odors and represents an environmentally friendly option to odor control. The successful installation of our technology has occurred on many sites throughout the Midwest.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

Captures odorous organic particulate matter commonly produced by CAFO’s
Reduces NH3 and H2S concentrations
Utilizes an environmentally friendly filtering media, pine bark, that becomes biologically active with controlled hydration intervals
Cost efficient, durable, easily installed and maintained with positive aesthetic appeal
Ventilation efficiency can be easily monitored through physical inspection and static pressure measurements

You can view this video in full screen by clicking on the icon second from right
Download a copy of this video (15 MB)

Limitations

Biofiltration is most effective on organic based odors and particulate matter
Media moisture levels need to be maintained between 30% and 65%
Static pressure requirements vary from .05 inches of water upon installation to .08 inches of water on a mature system
Pine bark may not be available at local retail outlets
Substitution of the recommended media may affect odor cell performance

Cost

Odor cell frames are constructed using stainless steel, DurameshTM hex netting, stainless steel tubing, nylon fittings and brass nozzles. These construction materials were chosen for durability and longevity due to the environment they will operate in. The following represents current pricing for the most common odor cells:

Standard P-8, $1200 plus $50 initial media fill
5 inch odor cell, $1425 plus $65 initial media fill
10 inch odor cell, $1650 plus $125 initial media fill
Porous rock base, approximately $20 per odor cell
Standard hydration package (Approximately $360 – timer, valves, control box, fittings , tubing, and hose)

Operational and maintenance costs are minimal. Media usage is approximately 10% per year. Hydration cycles can be controlled by an irrigation timer and rain sensor. A typical 1200 head swine finishing barn with 6 standard pit exhaust fans using all 10 inch odor cells would cost $11,130 upon installation (excluding shipping and labor) and $75 a year in operational expense. Assuming a complete change of media every 5 years, this equates to $.62 per pig space over 20 years or $.23 per pig produced over 20 years (assuming 2.6 turns per year).

Authors

Robert R. & Roger Treloar, Odor Cell Technologies LLC
Point of Contact:
Odor Cell Technologies LLC, odorcell@southslope.net

March 5, 2019October 21, 2019

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

March 5, 2019October 21, 2019

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