Tag: poultry litter

Posted on

What Practices Increase Infiltration and Reduce Runoff on Slopes Greater Than 30%?

Waste to Worth: Spreading science and solutions logoWaste to Worth home | More proceedings….

Why Are We Concerned About Runoff on Farms?

Farming in the driftless region of Wisconsin where the steep fields and waterways are all connected to rivers and streams can have signficant risks to water quality.  Sediment and nutrient movement into streams, rivers, and lakes in this part of the state has always been an issue, and agriculture has been identified as the largest contributor.  This talk is given by a farmer living and farming in one of the most challenging areas of the country.

What Did We Do?

Home dairy farm

For seven years, the UW – Discovery Farm Program (DFP) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) conducted a paired research project on a livestock operation in the driftless region of Wisconsin.  This farm consisted of about 800 acres of tillable acres where fields are steep (some >30% slope), and every one drains into a waterway or stream which eventually flows into the Mississippi River.

What Have We Learned?

The USGS installed two in-stream monitoring stations in two small headwater streams that divide the farm.  The north basin consists of 430 acres with 150 acres cropland, 250 acres woodland, and 30 acres pasture.  The south basin consists of 215 acres with 39 acres cropland and pasture, 107 acres woodland, and 69 acres in CRP/CREP.  The farming system uses a combination of conservation tools and techniques that have been adapted to fit the physical setting of the area, and the goals and vision of the producer who has a rich history of conservation. Harvesting precipitation is constantly at the forefront of operations through careful soil management, a network of small check dams and larger at-grade stabilization structures, and a focus on minimizing soil disturbance activities. Seven years of data indicated that almost all sediment losses occurred during a few large summer storms that exceed the design criteria.

Overlooking the dairy farm

Future Plans

This project is completed and all that remains is the development of outreach and education materials.

Authors

Joe Bragger, Dairy Farm Manager, Bragger Family Dairy,  braggfam@triwest.net

Dennis R Frame, Director, UW – Discovery Farms

Amber Radatz, Outreach Specialist, UW – Discovery Farms

Eric Cooley, Outreach Specialist, UW – Discovery Farms

Dam on the farm

Additional Information

Information is available through the website (http://www.uwdiscoveryfarms.org) or by contacting the office at 1-715-983-5668.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Posted on

Mitigating Ammonia Emissions from Animal Agriculture

Air emissions from animal agriculture operations consist of many different gases as well as suspended particulates (dust or microbes). One of these gases, ammonia, is gaining greater attention for its role in odor, but also as a precursor of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5). PM 2.5 has implications in haze and visibility as well as human health.

The materials on this page were developed to be used by educators and professors who include this topic in their classrooms or educational programs.

Fact Sheet

Sharon L. P. Sakirkin, Texas AgriLife Research; N. Andy Cole and Richard W. Todd, USDA-Agricultural Research Service; Brent W. Auvermann, Texas AgriLife Extension Service, Texas AgriLife Research

Alternate download: Ammonia from Cattle Operations part 1 (Introduction) and part 2 (abatement) combined in a single document (17 pages; PDF format)

Videos

Reducing Ammonia Emissions from Cattle Feedyards (5 min)

Andy Cole, USDA ARS

___

Mitigation of Nitrogen Excretion Through Dietary Manipulations

Mark Hanigan, Virginia Tech (14 minutes)

Note: the pixelation present at the start cleans up at the 2:00 minute mark

Presentation Slides

Archived Webinar

This webinar contains four individual video segments (ranging from 10 to 27 minutes) that discuss current and future mitigation options for reducing ammonia emissions from poultry litter. Presenters are: Eileen Wheeler, Pennsylvania State University; Hongwei Xin, Iowa State University; and Robert Burns, University of Tennessee. The archive also includes handouts and links to additional information. If you have difficulties please see our webcast troubleshooting page. If you need to download a copy of a segment, submit a request.

Acknowledgements

These materials were developed by the Air Quality Education in Animal Agriculture (AQEAA) project with with financial support from the National Research Initiative Competitive Grant 2007-55112-17856 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

For questions about the materials on this page contact Dr. Kevin Janni, University of Minnesota (kjanni@umn.edu). For questions about the AQEAA project, contact Dr. Rick Stowell, Unviersity of Nebraska (rstowell2@unl.edu).

If you have presentations, photos, video, publications, or other instructional materials that could be added to the curricula on this page, please contact Dr. Janni or Jill Heemstra (jheemstra@unl.edu).

Posted on

Manure and Litter Additives for Odor Control on Farms

Air emissions from animal agriculture operations and their associated manure storage are being examined more closely as a way to mitigate potentially harmful gases and odors. Manure additives and litter amendments go right to the source and are used to change one or more characteristics of manure to try and reduce emissions emissions of odorous gases. The materials on this page were developed to assist educators and professors who include manure additives or litter amendments as a topic in their classrooms or educational programs.

Fact Sheets

Sanjay Shah, Garry Grabow, Philip Westerman, North Carolina State University

Sanjay Shah, Philip Westerman, James Parsons, North Carolina State University

Technology Summaries

These are from a 2008 conference hosted by Iowa State University

Acknowledgements

These materials were developed by the Air Quality Education in Animal Agriculture (AQEAA) project with with financial support from the National Research Initiative Competitive Grant 2007-55112-17856 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

For questions about the materials on this page contact Dr. Kevin Janni, University of Minnesota (kjanni@umn.edu). For questions about the AQEAA project, contact Dr. Rick Stowell, Unviersity of Nebraska (rstowell2@unl.edu).

If you have presentations, photos, video, publications, or other instructional materials that could be added to the curricula on this page, please contact Dr. Janni or Jill Heemstra (jheemstra@unl.edu).

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

Dietary manipulations to lower ammonia emission from laying-hen manure

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Poultry (Layers)
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Ration Manipulation
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia

System Summary

Dietary manipulation has been shown to lower ammonia emission from laying-hen manure. Dietary amendments include lowering the protein content of the diet, including high-fiber ingredients such as corn distiller’s dried grains with solubles (DDGS), or including EcoCalTM—a proprietary mixture of calcium sulfate and zeolite. Liang et al. (2005) showed that a 1% lower crude protein diet caused a 10% decrease in ammonia emission from laying hens housed in high-rise houses. Roberts et al. (2007) found 40% lower ammonia emission from manure of hens fed 10% DDGS, 38% lower emission when hens were fed 7.3% wheat middlings, and 26% lower emission when hens were fed 4.8% soybean hulls compared to a standard diet. Field research from our group indicates that 3.5% dietary EcoCal lowers ammonia emission by 23%. Research has also evaluated the egg production from hens fed each of the adjusted diets and demonstrated that, when diets are properly formulated, egg production will be similar to that from hens fed a standard control diet.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Ammonia volatilization from laying-hen manure is affected by manure pH, content and chemical form of nitrogen, moisture content, and physical handling of manure
  • Low protein diets lower nitrogen content of the manure
  • High-fiber diets lower manure pH
  • In EcoCal, calcium sulfate lowers manure pH and zeolite binds ammonia, preventing or reducing volatilization

Limitations

  • High-fiber ingredients may not be suitable for nutrient-dense diets
  • Amino acid requirements of hens must be precisely known in order to formulate low-protein diets and maintain egg production
  • EcoCal adds cost to the diet with little nutrient addition
  • Diet cost and ammonia reduction must be evaluated for each individual egg production situation

Cost

The cost of diet modifications must be determined for each individual egg production situation. Feed ingredients are often priced according to private contracts and proximity to the supplier. Feed ingredients can only be added to the diet in exchange for other ingredients (mainly corn and soybean meal), making the evaluation of price amongst ingredients difficult. This exchange of one ingredient for another should be analyzed as the total diet cost of a nutritionally balanced diet, considering all ingredients together. Least-cost diet formulations consider the cost of an ingredient with regards to nutrient content. High-fiber ingredients are typically going to have a relatively low energy content and varying contents of digestible amino acids and minerals, which can be valued in the diet formulation. Low-crude protein diets are formulated by adding crystalline amino acids to the diet, replacing soybean meal and increasing corn. These diets may be cost-effective if the price of amino acids is favorable. EcoCal contributes some calcium to the diet, partially replacing limestone, a relatively inexpensive diet component.

Authors

S.A. Roberts1, H.Xin1, H. Li1, R.T. Burns1, K. Bregendahl1, E.C. Hale III3
1Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 2 Rose Acre Farms, Seymore, Indiana
Point of Contact:
hxin@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

Dietary Manipulation to Reduce Ammonia Emission from High-Rise Layer Houses

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Poultry (Layers)
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Ration Manipulation
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia

System Summary

Ammonia (NH3) generation from poultry production is a result of microbial decomposition of uric acid and undigested nitrogen in bird feces. Ammonia emission is associated with nitrogen (N) content of the feces, which is influenced by feed composition and feed conversion efficiency of the bird. To reduce N content in feces, ration may be formulated with reduced dietary crude protein (CP) and supplemented with limiting amino acids (AA) to match bird dietary requirements, thereby improving digestive conversion efficiency. Utilization of lower CP diets with supplemented essential amino acids is a source reduction method to mitigate ammonia emission from layer hen production facilities. Lower N excretion in the bird feces due to lower total N intake can result in lower NH3 emission from the system. The lower CP diet used in this study had 0.4 to 1.2% less CP than the standard or control diet during various feeding phases. The lower CP diet resulted in about 10% ammonia emission reduction. Formulation based on nutritional requirement at different feeding phases is required to achieve emission reduction without affecting bird performance, i.e. egg production and case weight. The cost of low CP diet is about 1% lower than that of the standard dietary formulation (2008 prices).

 

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Lower CP diet can have 0.4 to 1.2% lower CP than a standard diet during the various feeding phases.
  • Soy content is reduced in lower CP diets, and crystalline AA DL-methionine, L-lysine.HCL and L-threonine is supplemented to maintain the same essential AA levels in both diets for a given feeding phase.
  • Tryptophan and isoleucine in the lower CP diet may be slightly lower (from 0.02% to 0.06%) than those in the standard diets without affecting bird performance.

 

Limitations

  • Crude protein in the diet can only be reduced to certain level to avoid negatively impacting bird performance.

Cost

The cost for the lower CP diet with supplemented crystalline AA DL-methionine, L-lysine.HCL and L-threonine is about 1% lower than that for the standard diet. The cost advantage is better now with the current higher grain costs than in year 2003 when the study was conducted.

Authors

Y. Liang1, H. Xin2, R.S. Gates3, E.F. Wheeler4, K.D. Casey5, B.R.Behrends6, D.J.Burnham7
1University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, 2Iowa State University,Ames, IA, 3University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, 4Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 5Texas AgriLife Research, Amarillo, TX, 6Agri-Tech, a Sparboe Company, Litchfield, MN, 7Aviagen, Huntsville, AL
Point of Contact:
Hongwei Xin, hxin@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

Mitigation of Odor and Pathogens from CAFOs with UV/TIO2: Exploring Cost Effectiveness

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: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Air Treatment (UV Photocatalysis)
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Volatile Organic Compounds, Odor, Pathogens

System Summary

Odor and target VOCs responsible for livestock odor are mitigated by UV-185 nm (‘deep’ UV) in presence of TiO2 as a catalyst into less odorous or odorless products such as CO2 and H2O. Percent removals from 80 to 99% were measured in lab-scale experiments involving simulated livestock VOCs/odorants and 1 sec irradiation with a low wattage 5.5 W lamp. Selected VOCs simulating livestock odor included p-cresol, sulfur-containing VOCs, and volatile fatty acids. Treatment cost of $0.25 per pig and continuous operation during growing cycle was estimated when the lab-scale results were extrapolated to typical ventilation rates and electricity cost at a swine finish operation in rural Iowa. The long-term goal is to develop cost-effective technology for the simultaneous treatment of odor and pathogens in livestock housing through logical progression of testing from lab-scale, through pilot-scale and finally at commercial scale. Such treatment would be applicable to both the inflow (for airborne pathogen control) and outflow air (for odor and pathogen control) at typical existing and new mechanically-ventilated barns.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Removal of VOCs and responsible for livestock odor in simulated barn air exhaust with UV light and advanced oxidation.
  • Research continues to move this technology from lab to commercial applications.
  • Potentially applicable to both the inflow (for airborne pathogen control) and outflow air (for odor and pathogen control) at typical existing and new mechanically-ventilated barns
  • On-demand, intermittent operation.

Limitations

  • This technology is still under development
  • Cost estimates are extrapolated from lab-scale experiments
  • Effects of particulate matter on UV treatment needs to be investigated
  • Effectiveness and costs associated long-term full-scale operation are not known at this time.

Cost

Treatment cost of $0.25 per pig and continuous operation during growing cycle was estimated when the lab-scale results were extrapolated to typical ventilation rates and electricity cost at a swine finish operation in rural Iowa. This cost could be further reduced for intermittent, on-demand operation. The capital costs would be mainly cost of ‘on-the-shelf’ deep’ UV lamps (currently at $90 for 10W lamp) and the cost of retrofitting of barn exhaust.

Authors

Jacek A. Koziel1,Xiuyan Yang1, Tim Cutler1, Shicheng Zhang1, Jeffrey Zimmerman1, Steven J. Hoff1, William Jenks1, Hans Van Leeuwen1, Yael Laor2, Uzi Ravid3, Robert Armon31Iowa State University, 2’Ya’ar Research Center, Agricultural Research Organization, Israel, 3Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering Technion, Haifa, Israel
Point of Contact:
Jacek Koziel, koziel@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

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

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.

Proudly powered by WordPress