Tag: poultry litter

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

Gas Impermeable Film and Sheet for Control of Methane and Odors in Agricultural Applications

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, Poultry
Use Area: Manure Storage, Manure Treatment
Technology Category: Covers
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Odors, Methane, Ammonia

System Summary

For many years, food packaging has incorporated barrier layers to contain odors, flavors, oils and moisture along with the food contents while excluding contamination and oxygen. Until recently, agricultural films and geomembranes were monolithic structures employing only a single polymer or blend. Recent advances in extrusion and lamination equipment allow the incorporation of these barrier layers in large scale agricultural structures and operations such as floating covers over animal waste storage, containment geomembranes for biogas generation, silage storage and fumigation films.

To view the video in full screen, click the icon second from right on the bottom of the viewer.
Download a copy of this video

Co-extruding a thin layer of ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH) in a linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) geomembrane dramatically reduces the permeability to a wide range of gases and volatile organic carbon molecules including: methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide, oxygen, aromatic hydrocarbons, aliphatic hydrocarbons, methyl bromide and most odorous compounds. Methane permeabilites for four geomembranes are given below.

Methane Permeability (cc/(m2*day))
PVC LLDPE HDPE Barrier LLDPE
0.76 mm (30 mils) 1.0 mm (40 mils) 1.0 mm (40 mils) 0.5 mm (20 mils)
900 690 300 <1

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Barrier to noxious gases and odors
  • Useful in cover and containment systems

Limitations

  • EVOH is a crystalline polymer and is not elastic. It is flexible but should not be used as part of an elastomeric structure.

Cost

Engineered floating covers with ballasted weight systems, gas extraction systems and rainwater removal systems costs vary greatly. For waste lagoon of about 1/2 acre in size, the cover system can cost from $150,000 to $200,000. Addition of the barrier layer to the geomembrane adds less than $5,000.

Authors

Gary Kolbasuk, Raven Industries, Engineered Films Division
Point of Contact:
Gary.Kolbasuk@Ravenind.com

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

Posted on

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

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

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

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

System Summary

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

 

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

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

 

Limitations

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

Cost

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

Authors

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

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

Posted on

Effects of EcoCalTM on Ammonia Emission from a High-Rise Layer House

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

Continuous emission measurements at two mechanically-ventilated, high-rise layer houses were conducted to study the effects of Ecocal, a feed amendment designed to reduce NH3 emissions. Data presented in this paper was collected at a commercial egg production facility in October to January. The hens in house 2 were fed EcoCal for comparison with the standard diet used in house 1. EcoCal utilizes gypsum, an acidogen, and zeolite, an indigestible cation exchanger to lower manure pH, thus reducing NH3 emissions. Feeding a diet comprising 7% EcoCal significantly reduces manure ammonia emissions by effectively sequestering ammonium in the manure. An average difference of 51% was observed between the houses when EcoCal was implemented for about six weeks, after the house 2 emission rates appeared to have stabilized.

The application of EcoCal was expected to further NH3 emissions more than 51%, but the test was hindered by several unexpected incidents such as a major water line break in the house 2 manure pit and disruption of feed delivery due to a major snow storm. The initial feed costs were significantly increased when EcoCal is added to the diet.

 

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Decreasing manure pH reduces NH3 emission
  • EcoCal is a feed supplement for laying hens, including organic egg production.
  • EcoCal consists of natural minerals such as gypsum and zeolite, to reduce manure pH and sequester more manure nitrogen

 

Limitations

  • Diet should be limited to less than 60% of the dietary calcium supplied by EcoCal, because greater quantities of gypsum can result in thin egg shell and lower layer productivity
  • The cost of EcoCal can be variable, because it is not commercially available and delivery expense depends on geographical location.

 

Cost

The gross cost of adding EcoCal was about 2.4 cents per hen per month or $28,700/yr per 100,000 hens. The effects of EcoCal on egg production were not evaluated in this test, but any increases in egg production would offset the extra cost.

Authors

Teng Teeh Lim1, Alber J. Heber1, E. Carroll Hale III2, Ji-Qin Ni1, Lingying Zhao3
1Purdue University, 2 Rose Acre Farms, 3Ohio State University
Point of Contact:
limit@purdue.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

Feeding a Combination of Acidogenic Materials and Cation Exchangers Reduces Manure Ammonia Emissions and Improves Laying Hen Performance

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

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

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

System Summary

Feeding a combination of acidogens and indigestible cation exchangers reduces manure ammonia emission rates by sequestering ammonium in the manure. Average reductions of up to 68% have been noted in production environments. Reduced levels of ammonia in the production environment improve bird and worker health, reduces bird mortality, and improves productivity.

 

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Ammonia emissions are reduced through the use of alternative feed components.
  • The technology is suitable for use in any layer housing system.
  • Mitigation of manure ammonia emissions is due to a combination of reduced manure pH and cation exchangers present in the manure.

Limitations

  • Overfeeding acidogenic materials can adversely affect performance and productivity.
  • Effective levels of acidogens are typically well below the threshold level at which adverse effects would be noted.
  • No adverse effects due to overfeeding cation exchangers have been noted.
  • Cation exchange capacity, buffering capacity, and selectivity for ammonium are critical to the performance of this system.
  • Acceptable ratios of acidogen to cation exchanger depend on acidogen pKa and cation exchanger buffering capacity.

 

Cost

Suitable acidogens and cation exchangers are available in the marketplace. Gypsum/zeolite blends are commercially available as a pre-mix. Implementation of gypsum/zeolite blends depends on feed bin availability, while admixing sodium bisulfate and either zeolite or humate can be done through a microbin system.

Per-ton feed costs are increased when the system is utilized, but increased feed costs are more than offset by reduced hen mortality, improved feed conversion and egg production, and reduced per-dozen production costs.

 

Authors

E. Carroll Hale III
Earth Net LLC Point of Contact:
admin@usedi.com

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

Posted on

A Surface Aeration Unit for Odor Control from Liquid Swine Manure Storage Facilities

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

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Swine, Dairy, Poultry
Use Area: Manure Storage
Technology Category: Aeration
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Odors

System Summary

A surface aeration system composed of an aerator module with six venturi air injectors has been demonstrated to effectively reduce odor level (measured by odor detection threshold) emitted from an operating swine manure anaerobic lagoon. Past research reports have shown that partially aerating manure can reduce the power consumption by up to 80% as compared to full aeration, while still achieving satisfactory odor amelioration. Data from this project provide further evidence that it is not only feasible but also affordable for animal producers to consider using this technology to control odor. A reduction in odor detection threshold by about 67% was achieved after the surface aeration system started operation in the test lagoon for about 10 days. It was also observed that the aeration treatment could maintain a dissolved oxygen level of 0.3 mg/L in the top lagoon liquid and the aerated layer worked like a biological cover that had the capability of destroying the odorous compounds passing through it. Although the surface aeration technology presented in this paper is tested in swine manure lagoons, it is expected that the technology can also be applied to manure lagoons of other animal species such as dairy and poultry. As a matter of fact, there are already experiments being carried out on a poultry lagoon in Texas using the same aeration apparatus, the results from which will be compared with those presented here. It is anticipated that the aeration system will be available to animal producers in the near future.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • The surface aeration system can be applied to any open liquid manure storage facilities
  • Odorous compounds are intermediate products during anaerobic digestion and, without treatment, they will be emitted into air causing odor problems
  • Aeration is to provide oxygen to the aerobic microorganisms in the liquid so that they can actively decompose these odorous compounds
  • Surface aeration establishes a biological cover in which aerobes use the provided oxygen to clean up the odorous materials before they reach the air

 

Limitations

  • This technology is not suitable for in-barn manure storage structures such as deep pits
  • Since the surface aeration system is placed outdoors, the ambient temperature should always be above freezing point so the technology cannot be used in northern states of the country in winter.
  • Ammonia emission from the lagoon liquid under treatment may be increased due to increased pH in the liquid and the mixing effect

 

Cost

The capital cost of this surface aeration system is relatively inexpensive and all the venturi air injectors are commercially available (under $200/each). For a one-acre lagoon, the equipment cost including materials and installation may be anywhere between $10,000 and $15,000 and the running cost (for a 4.5 horsepower pump running 24 hours a day, 365 days a year) will be 4.5 hp x 0.75 kW/hp x 24 h/day x 365 day/year = 29,565 kWh. Assuming the price per kWh being at $0.07, the total annual cost for the operation will be 29,565 kWh x $0.07 = $2,070. Considering the particular lagoon receiving manure from 4,000 head finishing pigs and 2.5 production cycles a year, the treatment cost per pig marketed is only around 21 cents.

Authors

Jun Zhu1, Chunying Dong1, Cutis Miller1, Liang Wang1, Yecong Li1, Saqib Mukhtar21University of Minnesota, 2 Texas A&M University
Point of Contact:
Jun Zhu, zhuxx034@umn.edu

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

Posted on

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

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

This Technology is Applicable To:

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

System Summary

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

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

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

 

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

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

 

Limitations

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

 

Cost

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

Authors

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

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

Posted on

Reducing Ammonia Emissions from Poultry Litter with Alum

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: Chemical Amendment
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia

System Summary

Aluminum sulfate (alum) additions to poultry litter have been shown to reduce ammonia concentrations in and emissions from poultry rearing facilities. Adding alum to litter also decreases phosphorus runoff. There are three types of alum can be used in poultry houses; dry, liquid and high acid liquid alum (this paper focuses on dry alum). Typically alum is not applied to fresh bedding material, but added to used bedding prior to each subsequent flock. Ammonia levels in poultry houses receiving alum have been shown to be reduced by over 75% for the first two weeks of the flock, 50% the third week, and 20-30% thereafter. However, the exact length of time that ammonia is controlled is dependent on the rate of alum application, with higher rates resulting in better ammonia control. Recommended rates of alum vary from 0.045 to 0.09 kg/bird. However, these rates were based on broilers weighing 1.82 kg (4 lbs) at market age. Recently, more companies are growing larger broilers, which result in higher manure production and more ammonia emissions. Hence, for large birds the final market weight of the bird should be considered, with the corresponding range in alum application rates being 0.025 to 0.05 kg alum/kg bird. Alum application rates will be dependent on the desired length of time ammonia is controlled and whether or not controlling P runoff is desirable. Rates of 0.09 kg/bird have been shown to control ammonia for six weeks, while 0.045 kg/bird only controls ammonia for three weeks. Other benefits of alum include heavier birds, better feed conversion, lower condemnation, and reduced propane use during cooler months as a result of lower ventilation needs. Crop yields are also higher with alum-treated litter because of higher nitrogen content. Phosphorus, heavy metal and estrogen runoff are also reduced when litter is treated with alum, improving water quality.

 

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • NH3 volatilization from litter is dependent on pH, moisture content, air velocity, NH4 concentration, and temperature
  • Litter pH is an important factor for controlling NH3 volatilization
  • Alum applications reduce litter pH and suppresses NH3 emissions
  • Alum is applied to the litter before birds are placed

 

Limitations

  • Alum looses its effectiveness with time
  • Since alum begins working as soon as applied, birds should be placed 2-5 days after application
  • Dry alum results in dusty conditions during application; dust masks and goggles should be worn
  • The material has a low pH and can be corrosive to handle
  • Cost of alum is variable, dependent upon proximity of the production facility to the supplier

Cost

The cost of alum is dependent upon both the chemical cost, the proximity of the production facility to the supplier, and the charge made by a third party to apply it (if applicable). In the economic evaluation made by Moore et al. in 1999, the cost of alum was $0.26/kg alum applied ($0.12/lb), which was equivalent to $480 for a 1459 m2 house (16,000 ft2) treated with 1816 kg alum(4000 lb). Savings to the grower and integrator from lower propane and electricity use, heavier birds, improved feed conversion and lower condemnation totaled $940, resulting in a benefit cost ratio of 1.96. As a result of these benefits, currently 700-800 million chickens are grown with alum each year.

Authors

Philip Moore1, Dana Miles2, Robert Burns21USDA Agricultural Research Service, 2 Iowa State University
Point of Contact:
Philip Moore, philipm@uark.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