Tag: manure amendment

Posted on

Swine Manure Odor Reduction Using a Humic Amendment: On-Farm Demonstration


Why Study Odors from Pig Farms?

Odor-related nuisance complaints associated with animal production facilities are on the rise as residential sprawl encroaches on once rural areas. The efficacy of odor control additives is highly variable and most have limited success. This project demonstrated the efficacy of a commercial humic-material product (ManureMaxTM, Manufactured by JDMV Holding, LLC; Huston, TX) for limited control of liquid swine manure odors.

What did we do?

Two similarly-operated, 2,250-pig, tunnel-ventilated finishing barns on one farm were used for the demonstration. Barns were widely-separated by 1,800 feet of woodland and fields and were occupied by pigs of similar age. The underfloor manure storage pit (5-ft deep) of one barn received monthly additions with the additive while the other barn received no additive. After 20 weeks when hogs were finished for market and barns cleaned for restocking, treatments were switched so the previously untreated barn received the amendment. Odors at the barn ventilation exhaust were evaluated monthly by direct sensory methods (olfactometry) using human subjects. Field-applied manure was evaluated at the end of each 20-week grow-out period. Nasal Ranger Field Olfactometer (NRO) units were used to evaluate barn exhaust odor dilutions-to-threshold (D/T) and odors during field application, employing the Multiple-Assessor Repeat Observation (MARO) method (B randt et at., 2011a and 2011b). Barn ventilation exhaust was normalized against fan velocity and compared as odor flux (odor units min-1) among treatments. Whole air samples were collected in 10-liter TedlarTM® bags during each field visit and brought back to the Penn State Odor Assessmnt Laboratory (PSOAL) for evaluation. A team of five qualified odor panelists quantified odor detection threshold (DT) using Dynamic Triangular Forced-Choice Olfactometry (DTFCO) on an Ac’ScentTM International Dynamic Olfactometer (St. Croix Sensory, Lake Elmo, MN) within 10 hours of sample collection.

What have we learned?

Results show a 21% reduction in mean barn odor exhaust as shown in Table 1 and Table 2. The humic amendment significantly decreased barn ventilation odor flux by 21% in both field NRO and laboratory DTFCO evaluations. Evaluation of field applied manure yield a 21% and 60% decrease in odor concentrations for NRO and DTFCO, respectively.mean barn ventilation odor flux

mean barn ventilation odor flux

field-applied manure odor concentration

field-applied manure odor concentration DT

Authors

Hile, Michael, Ph. D. Candidate in Agricultural and Biological Engineering (ABE) at Penn State (PSU) mlh144@psu.edu

Brandt, Robin, Senior Lecturer in ABE at PSU, Eileen E. Fabian, Professor in ABE at PSU and Herschel A. Elliott, professor in ABE at PSU. Robert E. Mikesell, Program Coordinator and Senior Lecturer, Department of Animal Science at PSU.

Additional information

Brandt, R.C., H.A. Elliott, M.A.A. Adviento-Borbe, E.F. Wheeler, P.J.A. Kleinman, and D.B. Beegle. 2011a. Field Olfactometry Assessment of Dairy Manure Land Application Methods. J. Environ. Qual. 40: 431-437.

Brandt, R.C., M.A.A. Adviento-Borbe, H.A. Elliott, E.F. Wheeler. 2011. Protocols for Reliable Field Olfactometry Odor Evaluations. J. Appl. Engr Agr. Vol. 27(3): 457-466.

Brandt, R. C., H. A. Elliott, E. E. Fabian, M. L. Hile, R. E. Mikesell, Jr., 2014. Manure Additive Shows Swine Odor Reduction. Fact Sheet. Penn State University, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to JDMV Holding, LLC Houston, TX) for providing funding and product for this project. This project would not have been possible without the support from Natural Resources Conservation Service’ (NRCS) Conservation Innovation Grant (CIG) program.

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

Posted on

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 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

Bioaugmentation of Treatment System for Skatole Degradation: Bioremediation Potential for Odors Reduction at Livestock Operations

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Swine, Poultry
Use Area: Treatment System
Technology Category: Amendment (biological)
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Odors, Skatole

System Summary

It has been demonstrated that bioaugmentation of bioreactor with enrichment cultures and with a pure culture of Rhodococcus sp. isolated from swine lagoon is a viable alternative in reducing skatole, a main malodorous compound in swine effluent. We found that bioreactor amended with pure culture can degrade skatole as well as the enriched mixed culture after certain lag period. Pure culture bioreactor required longer lag time than the mixed culture. We also utilized these microorganisms in a liquid scrubber and found them to be quite effective in degrading skatole (data not shown). Thus, bioaugmentation of treatment systems with indigenous populations may increase the efficiency of treatment systems and provide a simple, cost-effective bioremediation potential in reducing malodors emission at livestock facilities.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Bioaugmentation is suitable for most treatment systems that can provide sufficient environmental conditions for growth
  • Target specific (pollutant)
  • Total mineralization of pollutant possible
  • Sustainable technology

Limitations

  • Requires optimum conditions for growth
  • Neutral pH and ample amount of oxygen
  • Need Sufficient amount of essential nutrients
  • May not work in a competitive exclusion environment and broader application range

Cost

The cost of bioaugmentation of a treatment system is dependent upon the type of the treatment systems. These microorganisms can be easily isolated and cultivated from contaminated sites. The extent of the cost would fall mostly on the purchase of nutrients for growth. In most cases, the required nutrients for growth could be obtained from the target pollutants themselves (e.g., emissions from swine or poultry wastes).

Authors

Nanh Lovanh, John Loughrin, Karamat Sistani; USDA-ARS, AWMRU, Bowling Green, KY 42104
Point of Contact:
Nanh Lobanh, nlovanh@ars.usda.gov

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

Posted on

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

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

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Poultry (Broiler)
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Chemical Amendment
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia

System Summary

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

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

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

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

Limitations

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

Cost

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

Authors

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

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

Posted on

Reduction of Ammonia Emission from Stored Laying-hen Manure Using Topically Applied Additives: Zeolite, Al+Clear, Ferix-3 and PLT

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 (Layers)
Use Area: Manure Storage
Technology Category: Chemical Amendment
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia

System Summary

Manure storage can be a significant source of ammonia (NH3) emission that could negatively impact the environment. Ammonia emission from manure storage may be controlled through physical, chemical and/or biological means. In this study, five treatment agents, including zeolite, 48.5% liquid Al+Clear (aluminum sulfate), granular Al+Clear (aluminum sulfate), granular Ferix-3 (ferric sulfate), and PLT (sodium bisulfate) were topically applied to stored nearly fresh laying-hen manure. Each agent was tested at three application rates, i.e., low, medium and high. Hen manure was stored in 19-litter Teflon-lined vessels under a constant ambient temperature of 23oC (73oF) and a ventilation rate of 11 air changes per hour (3 L/min). The NH3 concentrations and emissions from the vessels were measured and NH3 emission reductions by the treatment regimens were evaluated with reference to the control. The results show that there were no significant difference between the high and medium dosages for Al+Clear, Ferix 3, and PLT after the 7-d storage period. Reduction of NH3 emission by the topical application of the agents over a 7-day manure storage/testing period was as following: A) 36%, 62% or 92%, respectively, for zeolite applied at0.6, 1.3, or 1.9 lb/ft2 (3.1, 6.3, or 12.5 kg m-2) of manure surface area; B) 63% or 89%, respectively, for liquid Al+Clear applied at 0.2, or 0.4 lb/ft2 (1, or 2 kg m-2); C) 56% or 81% respectively, for dry granular Al+Clear applied at 0.1 or 0.2 lb/ft2 (0.5 or 1.0 kg m-2); D) 42% or 90%, respectively, for Ferix 3 applied at 0.1 or 0.2 lb/ft2 (0.5 or 1.0 kg m-2); and E) 74% or 90%, respectively, for PLT applied at 0.1 or 0.2 lb/ft2 (0.5 or 1.0 kg m-2).

 

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • NH3 volatilization from litter is dependent on pH, moisture content, air velocity, NH4 concentration, and temperature
  • Application of acidulant additives reduces litter pH and suppresses NH3 emission
  • Additives is topically applied to the fresh hen manure in storage

 

Limitations

  • An effective, automated delivery system(s) is (are) needed for the applications and should be fully investigated.
  • The material has a low pH and can be corrosive to handle
  • Ability of the acidulants to reduce pH, and thus reduce emissions, decreases over time

Cost

The costs of the additives with dry form are based on the 50 lb/pack prices of 2008. Ability of the additives to reduce emissions decreases over time. The costs of the topical application of the agents at end of the 7th day was as following: A) 1.56, 1.81 or 1.83 cent/ft2-10% NH3 reduction, respectively, for zeolite applied at 0.6, 1.3, or 1.9 lb/ft2 (3.1, 6.3, or 12.5 kg m-2) of manure surface area; B) 0.25 or 0.36 cent/ft2-10% NH3 reduction, respectively, for liquid Al+Clear applied at 0.2, or 0.4 lb/ft2 (1, or 2 kg m-2); C) 0.36 or 0.49 cent/ft2-10% NH3 reduction, respectively, for dry granular Al+Clear applied at 0.1 or 0.2 lb/ft2 (0.5 or 1.0 kg m-2); D) 0.46 or 0.42 cent/ft2-10% NH3 reduction, respectively, for Ferix-3 applied at 0.1 or 0.2 lb/ft2 (0.5 or 1.0 kg m-2); and E) 0.45 or 0.60 cent/ft2-10% NH3 reduction, respectively, for PLT applied at 0.1 or 0.2 lb/ft2 (0.5 or 1.0 kg m-2).

Authors

H. Li1, H. Xin1, R.S. Burns1, Y.Liang21Iowa State University, 2 University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR
Point of Contact:
Hong Li, lwblue@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

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

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

Using Liquid Aluminum Sulfate to Reduce Poultry Housing Ammonia Emissions

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

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Poultry (Broiler and Turkey)
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Amendment (Chemical)
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia

System Summary

Application of liquid aluminum sulfate to poultry litter has been demonstrated to effectively reduce litter ammonia emissions in broiler and turkey production systems. Liquid alum should be applied prior to bird placement in the house. The length of ammonia emission control ranges from 2.5 to 3.5 weeks following application and increases with increasing application rate (Armstrong, et. al, 2003). In addition to reducing overall house ammonia emissions, liquid alum can be used to hold in-house ammonia levels below 25 ppm during the first two weeks of a grow-out, which is considered to have a positive effect on bird performance

Selection of a liquid alum application rate is dependent upon the amount of and length of ammonia control desired. Tested liquid alum application rates (48.5% alum Al Clear product) of 0.82 and 1.64 L/m2 (0.02 and 0.04 gal/ft2), were considered low and high rates, respectively. When tested in poultry broiler production housing, the low rate suppressed in-house ammonia levels for 2.5 weeks, and the high rate suppressed ammonia levels for 3.5 weeks. In addition to reducing in house ammonia levels, there is some evidence that using liquid alum will also reduce mortalities through improved bird health and reduce propane use during cooler months because of reduced ventilation requirements.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • NH3 volatilization from litter is dependent on pH, moisture content, in-house air velocity, NH4 concentration, and temperature
  • Litter pH is an important factor for controlling NH3 volatilization
  • Application of liquid alum reduces litter pH and suppresses NH3 emission
  • Liquid alum is applied to the litter before birds are in place

Limitations

  • Liquid alum application looses its effectiveness ~ three weeks after initial application
  • Since liquid alum begins working immediately, and birds are typically placed 1 week after application, a two week period of effectiveness can be expected once birds are placed.
  • The material has a low pH and can be corrosive to handle
  • Liquid alum is recommended to be applied by a commercial applicator, since transport is regulated.

Cost

The delivered cost of liquid alum is dependent upon the proximity of the production facility to a liquid alum distributor. Distributor cost is reflective of transport and chemical costs. For the costs presented here, the production facility was 370 km (230 miles) from the distributer and the delivered cost for liquid alum was 0.16 cents/L (0.60 cents/gal). The costs associated with liquid alum as an amendment to mitigate ammonia is the cost of the material and transport plus the application fee. In this case, the application fee was $40/house. Preparation for liquid alum placement in the house requires the same steps that are taken in preparing the production house for the next grow out, so no additional house preparation costs are incurred. The cost per 1,824 m2 (20,000 ft2) production house is $262 for an application rate of 0.82 L/m2 (0.02 gal/ft2) and $504 for an application rate of 1.64 L/m2 (0.04 gal/ft2); this is equivalent to $0.009 and $0.017 per bird produced. In this case, the proximity of the production facility to the distributor was favorable, and the cost of applying liquid alum was less than the cost of applying the equivalent amount of dry alum.

Authors

Robert Burns1, Philip Moore2, Lara Moody11Iowa State University, 2 USDA Agricultural Research Service
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.

Posted on

Litter Management Strategies in Relation to Ammonia Emissions from Floor-Raised Birds

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Poultry (Broiler and Turkey)
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Management, Chemical Amendment
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia

System Summary

Managing floor-raised poultry offers options for providing a suitable environment for the bird productivity and an opportunity to reduce environmental pollution. Reduction of aerial ammonia (NH3) concentration within the poultry house will benefit bird health for improved production and reduce emissions from the building. Three management options are discussed: 1. new bedding every flock; 2. built-up litter; 3. built-up litter with acidifying product.

Indoor ammonia level and emissions are most improved with use of new litter every flock. Adoption of this practice is very limited in the USA. Built-up litter is most common in the USA. Acidifying treatments are applied to built-up litter in an attempt to reduce litter pH below 7 to overcome the substantial ammonia volatilization

Acid treatments have offered variable results under field conditions in reducing in-house aerial ammonia levels and associated emissions. Variable results are due, in part, to reduced ventilation rates to lower supplemental heat expenditures after application of acid treatment. Reduced ventilation fresh air exchange results in increased house humidity and ammonia concentration within the building. Attention to litter pH and aerial humidity after application of acid-treatment should improve results for more consistent aerial environment improvement.

 

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Reducing ammonia during brooding improves bird productivity and lowers emissions to atmosphere.
  • Litter pH below 7 inhibits ammonia production and volatilization
  • New bedding every flock provides ~0 ppm ammonia in-house and NH3 emission for the first week

 

Limitations

  • Acid effectiveness lasts two to three weeks with re-application impractical
  • Affordable sources of suitable new bedding not available in all regions
  • Ammonia held in litter by acid is released later in flock for limited overall flock emissions reduction

 

Cost

Labor cost of implementing new litter every flock is close to the labor (16 hours) for managing built-up litter. Cost of new bedding material every flock may be equal to, but usually greater than acid treatment between flocks. New litter benefit reported here does not account for the savings from reduced energy use during the brooding period (lower ventilation rates possible) and increased bird placement numbers with the improved environment versus flocks raised on acid-treated built-up litter.

Authors

Eileen Wheeler1, Kenneth Casey2, Richard Gates3, Hongwei Xin4, Yi Liang5, Patrick Topper1
1Pennsylvania State University, 2 Texas AgriLife Research, Texas A&M System, 3University of Kentucky, 4Iowa State University, 5University of Arkansas
Point of Contact:
Eileen Fabian Wheeler, efw2@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.

Proudly powered by WordPress