Tag: odor emissions

Posted on

Odor Emissions from Typical Animal Production Farms in Ohio

Purpose

Odor emissions from animal feeding operations (AFOs) remain a significant nuisance issue. Some neighboring communities of AFOs have complained that odor degraded their quality of life and well-being. Odor is a subjective response of humans, and the perception of odor varies significantly among people. Farmers may have been used to the farm smells and do not feel odor offensive. However, people with no farming background may be sensitive to odor and experience many different physiological and psychological responses to odor.

Unbiased scientific assessments are needed to resolve conflicts among farmers and neighboring communities and make objective and informed decisions about best management practices for odor mitigation in animal productions. Due to the complication and high cost of odor measurement, limited odor data are available to facilitate scientific understanding and develop effective mitigation of the odor concerns. The presentation reports on-farm odor sampling methods, measurement of odor concentrations in labs, and estimation of odor emission rates (ERs) for representative animal production farms in Ohio.

What Did We Do

Over the past decades, we have developed many research and extension projects to evaluate air quality and emissions at typical Ohio farms through seasonal on-farm sampling and monitoring measurement. The farms include swine, dairy, and poultry layer farms. Odorous air was sampled into 10-L Tedlar bags using a SKC-Vac-U-Chamber (SKC Inc., 863 Valley View Road, Eighty-Four PA 15330). The odor samples were shipped to the odor lab at Purdue University within 30 h of collection for measurement of odor concentrations (OUE m-3) using a dynamic olfactometer (AC’SCENT International Olfactometer, St. Croix Sensory, Inc., Stillwater, MN, USA).

When it was feasible to measure ventilation rates of animal facilities, the ventilation rate data along with the odor concentration data were used to estimate odor emission rate from the animal facilities. Further, the odor concentration and emission data were analyzed to identify correlation with environmental conditions and other air pollutant emissions, such as ammonia emission, to seek effective management practices for odor control.

What Have We Learned

Odor sources are animals and their manure and therefore can be physically associated with animal buildings, manure storages, and fields of manure land application. Different animal operations result in significantly different odor levels and liquid manure management practices are associated with higher odor levels.

The odor characteristics of layer house exhaust air were strongly associated with layer manure characteristics. The annual mean odor concentration was quantified as 355 ± 112 OUE m-3, and the annual mean odor emission rate was estimated as 0.14 ± 0.11 OUE s-1 hen-1for two manure-belt layer houses in Midwest region.

Significant seasonal variations were observed in odor concentrations inside the layer houses with high concentrations in summer and winter. The odor emission rates were the lowest in spring, but not significantly different in summer, fall, and winter.

House ventilation rate significantly affected odor emission rates, with higher ventilation rates corresponding to higher odor emissions. Ammonia concentration and emission rate inside the layer houses were significantly and positively correlated with the odor concentrations and emission rate.

Odor concentrations decrease exponentially as distances from the sources increase. Odor dispersion is affected by many factors. The data analysis also indicated seasonal and spatial variations in odor levels on farms, and the times and places that effective mitigation is needed. Measurements of odor are fundamentally important to understand odor concerns, develop estimation tools and effective mitigation.

Future Plans

Continue to develop odor mitigation management practices and technologies and tools to predict odor emission and dispersion from animal feeding operations.

Authors

Lingying Zhao, Professor and Extension Specialist, The Ohio State University
zhao.119@osu.edu

Additional Authors

-Glen Arnold, Assoc. Professor and Extension Field Specialist, The Ohio State University
-Mike Brugger, Faculty Emeritus, The Ohio State University
-Roger Bender, Former OSU Extension Educators. The Ohio State University
-Gene McClure, Former OSU Extension Educators. The Ohio State University
-Eric Immerman, Former OSU Extension Educators. The Ohio State University
-Albert Heber, Professor Emeritus, Purdue University
-JiQin, Ni, Professor, Purdue University

Additional Information

Airquality.osu.edu

Zhao, L.Y., L.J. Hadlocon, R. B. Manuzon, M. J. Darr, X. Tong, A.J. Heber, and J.Q. Ni. 2015. Odour concentrations and emissions at two manure-belt egg layer houses in the U.S. J.Q. Ni, T.T. Lim, C. Wang (Eds.). In Animal Environment and Welfare–Proceedings of International Symposium (pp 42-49). Rong Chang, China, October 23-26th.

Acknowledgements

The air quality survey studies on Ohio farms were supported by the internal SEED grants of the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, College of Food, Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, The Ohio State University.

The poultry layer house study was supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under award number 2005-35112-15422.

Appreciation is also expressed to the participating producers and staff for their collaboration and support.

 

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. 2022. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth. Oregon, OH. April 18-22, 2022. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Managing Odors, Neighbor Relations, and Estimating Setbacks for Animal Feeding Operations

When a new or expanded animal feeding operation is proposed, air quality and odors are often identified as a concern by community members. Available science-based resources will help you better understand odor, health and zoning issues. Understanding these issues can help community members with diverse interests and perspectives engage in informed conversations as they deal with community decisions regarding zoning and land use related to large animal feeding operations.

Neighbor Relations and Odor Management

Odor is a surprisingly complex issue that can impact neighbors and others. Farmers care about their impact on neighbors and look for effective methods to reduce odors. The goal is to keep odors at non-detectable or non-offensive levels. This 9 minute video will introduce some odor management issues and options available to reduce odors. Odor mitigation includes careful site planning and, as needed, the use of natural (windbreaks and setbacks), technological and management practices. The costs of different odor reduction practices vary and should be carefully considered to determine if they are a good fit for each individual operation. Visit the Feedlot Air Emissions Treatment Cost Calculator to download a spreadsheet to help calculate costs and benefits of installing technologies to treat odors and gas emissions from animal feeding operations.

Setback Tools

This nine minute video describes three setback estimation tools developed and used in Minnesota, Nebraska and Iowa as the result of extensive research. These tools determine appropriate setback distances to manage odors when building new or expanding existing livestock or poultry facilities.

The siting of a livestock or poultry production facility is the first step in odor control to minimize impacts on nearby neighbors and public areas. Each facility needs a site-specific plan as there is no one-size-fits-all recommendation. Topography, local weather, presence of other odor sources in the area, sensitivity of the neighbors, and the characteristics of the animal facility all play a role in determining setbacks. Fortunately there are science-based tools available to assist producers, concerned citizens, and policy makers in making sound decisions.

Some of the ways farmers can manage odors include:

Also see the excellent video on “Odors on Livestock Farms: A Case Study From Nebraska” and visit the Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Center air quality page for more resources on managing air emissions.

More Videos in This Series

Additional educational materials are available at Air Quality in Animal Agriculture

Acknowledgements

For more information about this video or these resources, contact Dr. Kevin Janni, University of Minnesota kjanni@umn.edu

These materials were based upon work supported by the by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture under Agreement No. 2010-85112-20520.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this video are those of the speaker and do not reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Posted on

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.

Posted on

Multi-pollutant Scrubbers for Removal of Ammonia, Odor, and Particulate Matter from Animal House Exhaust Air

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, Poultry
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Scrubber
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia, Odor, Particulate Matter

System Summary

In The Netherlands, Germany and Denmark packed-bed biotrickling filters and acid scrubbers for removal of ammonia from exhaust air of animal houses are off-the-shelf techniques for ammonia removal (70 – 95% average removal). At the moment a new generation of so-called “multi-pollutant scrubbers” is being developed and tested that not only removes ammonia but also aims for significant removal of odor and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) from the air. Recently a 3-year research program has started that monitors and aims to improve the performance of five farm-scale multi-pollutant scrubber from different manufacturers. The preliminary results show that the average ammonia removal is relatively high (83%, n = 7) but that the average removal of odor (40%, n = 8) and particulate matter (PM10: 43%, n = 2; PM2.5: 42%, n = 2) needs to be improved further.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Ammonia scrubbers consist of two types: either acid scrubbers or biotrickling filters
  • Multi-pollutant air scrubbers usually consist of two or more scrubbing stages where subsequent removal of coarse dust, ammonia and odor takes place
  • Scrubber are mainly applied in pig housings with central ventilation ducts; application in poultry housings are scarce because of high dust concentrations
  • Already 10% of all exhaust air from pig houses The Netherlands is treated; this equals a treatment capacity of 79 million m3/hour

Limitations

  • Odor and dust removal is less effective than ammonia removal, at least for now
  • High concentrations of coarse dust result in blockage of packing material and increased energy use (pressure drop)
  • Costs are considered high, but multi-pollutant scrubbers provide an option for large scale livestock operations to remain in operation in areas nearby residential areas and sensitive ecosystems

Cost

Investment and operational cost of scrubbers for newly built production facilities in € / animal space.
Acid Scrubber Biotrickling Filter Multi-pollutant scrubber (3-stage water/acid/biotrickling)
Investment Costs 32.8 43.5 50.3
Operational Costs (year^1):
Depreciation (10%) 2.6 3.4 4.2
Maintenance (3%) 1.5 1.8 2.0
Interest (6%) 0.8 1.0 1.2
Electricity use ((€ 0.11 kWh^-1) 3.3 3.8 3.7
Water use (€ 1.0 m^-3) 0.6 1.7 0.6
Chemical use (€ 0.6 L^-1 H2SO4, 98%) 1.4 n/a 0.7
Water discharge [b 0.6 2.5 1.0
Total operational costs (year^-1) 10.8 14.3 13.5

[a] The investment costs are based on a maximum ventilation capacity of 60 m3 animal place-1 h-1.
[b] Water disposal costs are assumed of € 10/m3 for discharge from acid scrubbing and € 2/m3 for discharge from biotrickling or water scrubbing. For the multi-pollutant scrubber, discharge water from the biotrickling or water scrubbing step is reused in the acid scrubbing step. The systems do not include a denitrification unit which might significantly decrease water discharge costs.
[c] n/a = not applicable.

Authors

Roland W. Melse, Nico W.M. Ogink, Bert J.J. Bosma; Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen University and Research centre, The Netherlands
Point of Contact:
Roland W. Melse, roland.melse@wur.nl

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

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

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

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.

Posted on

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.

Posted on

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

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

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

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

System Summary

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

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

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

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

Limitations

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

Cost

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

Authors

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

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

Posted on

Effect on Residue Cover and Crop Yield of Manure Incorporation Equipment

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

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

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

System Summary

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

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

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

Limitations

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

Cost

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

Authors

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

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

Posted on

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.

Proudly powered by WordPress