Efficacy of Vegetative Environmental Buffers to Mitigate Emissions from Tunnel-Ventilated Poultry Houses

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: Environmental Barriers
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Dust, Ammonia, Odor

System Summary

Emissions of dust, gases and odor from poultry facilities pose major challenges for the poultry industry worldwide. Cost-effective technologies to abate emissions from modern tunnel-ventilated poultry houses are limited. In 2002 a three-row planting of trees was installed opposite two, 1.2 meter (4 ft) diameter tunnel fans to evaluate vegetative environmental buffers (VEB) as a means of mitigating emissions from the poultry house. The first row, 9.1 meters (30 ft) from the fans was 4.8 meter (16 ft) high bald cypress, followed by 4.3 meter (14 ft) high Leyland cypress and the outer most row of 2.4 meter (8 ft) high Eastern red cedar. Over the next six years the efficacy of these trees to reduce total dust, ammonia and odor was determined. Measurements were taken at 1.2 meter (4 ft) height on 47 days during peak fan operation with market-age broilers. The relative change in concentration across this 6.7 meter (22 ft) wide vegetative buffer found the VEB significantly reduced total dust, ammonia and odor by 56%, 54% and 26%, respectively. Meteorological conditions and the type of crop next to the VEB appeared to influence the efficacy of vegetation to reduce odor. Dust and ammonia concentration was influenced by these factors to a lesser degree. This suggests the use of trees as vegetative filters may offer a long-term, cost-effective means of partially abating emissions from houses. The local poultry industry trade association for the Delmarva Peninsula has hired a coordinator to implement tree plantings around farms to help abate emissions and to be proactive in addressing increasing neighbor-relations concerns.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Certain plants have the ability to absorb ammonia and capture particulates
  • Vegetation also acts as a sink for chemical constituents of odor
  • A properly designed windbreak aids in dispersion and dilutions of odors as well as reducing wind speed
  • A VEB planting has multiple goals; abate emissions, improve neighbor-relations, and provide shade and shelter of the house

Limitations

  • Growers need technical assistance on the proper design, implementation and care of VEB that is tailored to the unique features of each operation
  • Retrofitting a farm with VEB to capture emissions from all fans is difficult.
  • Species of tree and proper implementation influences time required for VEB to become effective in reducing emissions
  • VEB is a practical and multi-purpose BMP to partially abate emissions.

 

Cost

Average cost for implementing a VEB on an existing broiler farm is ~$5,500. Cost range from $1,500 for a limited one-row planting to provide a visual screen of the farm, and up to $12,000 for multi-row plantings around the outside perimeter of the poultry houses. There is limited information on design and efficacy of VEB plantings between houses. Locally, cost-share programs have provided support to cover most of the costs associated with implementing this program. Plantings to address neighbor-relations have been a driving factor in VEB establishment. An estimated 1/3 of all poultry farms have established VEB on the Delmarva Peninsula. A VEB is also a requirement for a new house loan from one of the major lending institutions.

Authors

George Malone1, Gary VanWicklen1, Stephan Collier1
1University of Delaware
Point of Contact:
George Malone, malone@udel.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.

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.

Practical Partial Biofiltration of Swine Exhaust Ventilation Air

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Swine
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Biofilter
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Odor, Ammonia

System Summary

The mitigation technique discussed is to utilize biofiltration for a portion of swine barn ventilation air. The portion mitigated is that portion of air emitted into stable atmospheres. Stable atmospheres have poor vertical mixing potential and therefore gases and odors emitted tend to remain close to the earth’s surface and can therefore be sensed at longer distances downwind. It is impractical to mitigate all of the exhaust ventilation air required in swine housing. Techniques are needed that apply odor and gas mitigation to a portion of the ventilation air stream, when receptors might experience an odor event. Additionally, many barns incorporate combinations of fans and curtains (i.e. hybrid ventilated) to supply required ventilation air. Any mitigation strategy applied to barn ventilation air must be able to accommodate these hybrid ventilation systems as well.

Ventilation air exhausted during the heat of summer days is exhausted into an atmosphere that is, for the vast majority of times, very unstable providing excellent and natural mixing potential near the building source. In more stable atmospheres, typically present during the evening hours, biofiltration of a critical minimum amount of ventilation air (i.e. partial biofiltration) would reduce ammonia and odor emissions during those times when the potential for odor plumes to travel long distances is greatest. The overall effect would be a more attractive biofiltration strategy that maximizes ammonia and odor reduction potential when most needed.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Biofiltering of a critical minimum amount of ventilation air
  • Applies mainly to hybrid ventilated swine finishing facilities
  • Can be used as an odor “impact based” mitigation strategy

Limitations

  • Requires fan ventilation of barns up to about 81 m3/h-pig (48 ft3/min-pig)
  • Biofilter applications apply added stress to the ventilation system
  • Biofilters require ample water supply to keep the biofilter media in the 50-60% range

Cost

The biofilter application presented in this research required $4,959 for biofilter supplies and equipment including four new biofilter fans (300-head pig finishing room). Biofilter supplies, equipment, and construction labor resulted in a total implementation cost of $6,759 or $22.53/pig space. The added energy to operate the biofilter fans resulted in an additional $0.42/pig-produced.

Authors

Steven J. Hoff1, Jay D. Harmon1, Lide Chen1, Kevin A. Janni2, David R. Schmidt2, Richard E. Nicolai3, Larry D. Jacobson21Iowa State University, 2 University of Minnesota, 3South Dakota State University
Point of Contact:
Steven J. Hoff, hoffer@iastate.edu

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

Effects of Dietary Manipulation on Ammonia Emissions

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Swine
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Diet Modification
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia

System Summary

Dietary manipulation, such as lowering crude protein with amino acid supplementation or fiber addition, is an effective method to decrease ammonia emissions from swine finishing facilities. Lowering crude protein content of the diet with amino acid supplementation markedly reduces nitrogen excretion. In studies conducted for the entire finishing period (Bundy et al., 2008; Lachmann et al., 2007), lowering crude protein content by 3 percentage units with amino acid supplementation decreases total nitrogen excretion by approximately 30% and ammonium nitrogen concentration of the slurry by 37%. The decrease in nitrogen excretion reduces the concentration of ammonium in the slurry which in turn decreases ammonia emission. Results suggest a reduction in ammonia emission of up to 50% with the use of a low protein diet. Additionally, the reduction in ammonium concentration of the slurry also reduces slurry pH which affects ammonia volatilization. Addition of fiber sources to the diet reduces urinary urea excretion which can be degraded enzymatically to ammonia. Fiber addition affects nitrogen excretory patterns and reduces ammonium nitrogen concentration of the slurry which can lead to further reductions in ammonia emissions. The reduction in crude protein content or addition of fiber sources to swine diets can reduce or change nitrogen excretion patterns resulting in marked decreases in ammonia emissions for pigs housed in facilities with shallow pit, pull-plug waste storage systems.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • NH3 emissions from swine housing is dependent on the amount of nitrogen excreted
  • Swine typically excrete 30 to 50% of the nitrogen consumed
  • Reducing dietary crude protein with amino acid supplementation can markedly decrease nitrogen excretion
  • Addition of fiber sources to diets also has potential to influence nitrogen excretion patterns
  • These dietary manipulations can markedly decrease ammonia emissions from swine finisher facilities

Limitations

  • Correct estimation of the amino acid requirements of the pig is critical
  • Accurate supplementation of amino acids is critical to reduce risk on growth performance and carcass traits
  • Nutrient content of fiber sources is needed for diet formulation
  • Upper limits to crude protein reduction and fiber addition in diets
  • Cost of amino acid supplementation and use of nutritionist in formulation

Cost

The costs associated with dietary manipulation are solely dependent upon ingredient cost assuming growth performance and carcass traits are not adversely affected. Formulation of low protein diets involves the partial removal of soybean meal from the diet accompanied by replacement with corn and crystalline amino acids (lysine HCl, DL-methionine, L-threonine). Therefore, evaluation of implementation cost weighs the decrease in soybean meal costs versus the increase in corn and amino acid costs within the diet. Using March 2008 ingredient costs, diet costs for a conventional corn-soybean meal based diet and a low protein (-3%), amino acid supplemented diet are similar. Thus, assuming no difference in growth rate or feed intake, cost of gain and total feed cost for the finishing period are similar. Dietary costs need to be re-evaluated with changing ingredient costs.

Authors

Scott Carter, Mariela Lachmann, Justin Bundy; Oklahoma State University
Point of Contact:
Scott Carter, scott.carter@okstate.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.

Methane Emissions from Dairy Cattle

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Dairy
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Diet Modification
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Methane

System Summary

There are a large number of options that can potentially be used to mitigate methane emissions from dairy cattle. The basic result of using these approaches is an improvement in the efficiency of nutrient use in the animal and increased productivity. Methane emissions per unit of milk produced will decrease as a result of these changes. An important component is continuing to improve forage quality. Higher quality forages have higher digestibility in the cow and less methane emissions than lower quality forages. A second approach is to better balance the diet protein and carbohydrate fractions to improve the efficiency of both rumen fermentation and feed nutrient use. Methane emissions will be reduced as a result. There are also opportunities to provide specific feed additives to decrease methane emissions from the cow. Their use is currently limited due to lack of data to demonstrate their efficacy in lactating dairy cows. Ionophores are one feed additive that does have data indicating improved feed efficiency and decreased methane emissions.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

Potential mitigation options include:

  • Improved forage quality
  • Rations balanced to improve efficiency of rumen fermentation
  • Use of ionophores in rations

Limitations

  • Many options will require some financial investment
  • Management changes may be needed
  • Requires a systems approach
  • Feed additives that could be helpful in reducing methane emissions have not been tested in animal trials
  • Cost to benefit ratio cannot be defined for many practices that could be use

Cost

The cost of practices that could be implemented on a dairy farm to reduce methane emissions will be highly farm specific. Each farm will need to evaluate the available mitigation options to determine the best choices for their situation. The costs for implementation will also vary between farms due to differences in their current cost structures. The initial benefits to the farm will be improved efficiency of animal production, efficiency of nutrient use and improved profitability.

Authors

Larry Chase, Cornell University
Point of Contact:
Dr. L.E. Chase, lec7@cornell.edu

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

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

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

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

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

System Summary

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

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

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

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

Limitations

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

Cost

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

Authors

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

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

Effect on Residue Cover and Crop Yield of Manure Incorporation Equipment

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

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

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

System Summary

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

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

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

Limitations

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

Cost

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

Authors

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

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

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.

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.

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.