SWINE MANURE STORAGE COVERS FOR ODOR CONTROL

1999 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 567-572 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. J. Clanton ◽  
D. R. Schmidt ◽  
L. D. Jacobson ◽  
R. E. Nicolai ◽  
P. R. Goodrich ◽  
...  
2012 ◽  
Vol 80 (2) ◽  
pp. 427-440 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maialen Barret ◽  
Nathalie Gagnon ◽  
Bruno Morissette ◽  
Edward Topp ◽  
Martin Kalmokoff ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Baitong Chen ◽  
Jacek A. Koziel ◽  
Chumki Banik ◽  
Hantian Ma ◽  
Myeongseong Lee ◽  
...  

Odorous gas emissions from swine production have been a concern for neighbors and communities near livestock farms. Manure storage is one of the main sources of gaseous emissions. Manure additive products are marketed as a simple solution to this environmental challenge. Manure additives are user-friendly for producers and can be applied (e.g., periodically poured into manure) without changing the current manure storage structure. Little scientific data exist on how these products perform in mitigating gaseous emissions from swine manure. The research objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of 12 marketed manure additives on mitigating odor, ammonia (NH3), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), greenhouse gases (GHG), and odorous volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from stored swine manure. A controlled pilot-scale setup was used to conduct 8-week long trials using manufacturer-prescribed dosages of additives into swine manures. Manure was outsourced from three swine farms to represent a variety of manure storage types and other factors affecting the properties. Measured gaseous emissions were compared between the treated and untreated manure. None of the tested products showed a significant reduction in gaseous emissions when all (n = 3) manures were treated as replicates. Selected products showed a wide range of statistically-significant reduction and generation of gaseous emissions when emissions were compared in pairs of manure types from one farm. The latter observation highlighted the lack of consistent mitigation of gaseous emissions by manure additives. The results of this study do not warrant full-scale trials with the tested products.


2014 ◽  
Vol 481 ◽  
pp. 69-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stacey R. Joy ◽  
Xu Li ◽  
Daniel D. Snow ◽  
John E. Gilley ◽  
Bryan Woodbury ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Minseok Kim ◽  
Jung-Im Yun ◽  
Seung-Gun Won ◽  
Kyu-Hyun Park

We investigated microbial diversity in a manure storage tank (MST) storing untreated manure and an aeration tank (AT) during swine manure treatment process using the next-generation sequencing in order to find the aeration effect on microbial diversity. Proteobacteria were more abundant in the AT group than in the MST group and may include denitrifying bacteria contributing to nitrous oxide (N2O) emission or aerobic bacteria stimulated by oxygen. The opposite held true for the phyla Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes that may include anaerobic bacteria inhibited under aerobic conditions in the AT group.


Author(s):  
Baitong Chen ◽  
Jacek A. Koziel ◽  
Myeongseong Lee ◽  
Hantian Ma ◽  
Zhanibek Meiirkhanuly ◽  
...  

Hydrogen sulfide and ammonia are always a concern in the livestock industries, especially when farmers try to clear their manure storage pits. Agitation of manure can cause dangerously high concentrations of harmful agents such as H2S and NH3 to be emitted into the air. Biochar has the ability to sorb these gases. We hypothesized that applying biochar on top of manure can create an effective barrier to protect farmers and animals from exposure to NH3 and H2S. In this study, two kinds of biochar were tested, highly alkaline, and porous (HAP, pH 9.2) biochar made from corn stover and red oak biochar (RO, pH 7.5). Two scenarios of (6 mm) 0.25” and (12 mm) 0.5” thick layers of biochar treatments were topically applied to the manure and tested on a pilot-scale setup, simulating a deep pit storage. Each setup experienced 3-min of agitation using a transfer pump, and measurements of the concentrations of NH3 and H2S were taken in real-time and measured until the concentration stabilized after the sharp increase in concentration due to agitation. The results were compared with the control in the following 3 situations: 1. The maximum (peak) flux 2. Total emission from the start of agitation until the concentration stabilized, and 3. The total emission during the 3 min of agitation. For NH3, 0.5” HAP biochar treatment significantly (p<0.05) reduced maximum flux by 63.3%, overall total emission by 70%, and total emissions during the 3-min agitation by 85.2%; 0.25” HAP biochar treatment significantly (p<0.05) reduced maximum flux by 75.7%, overall, total emission by 74.5%, and total emissions during the 3-min agitation by 77.8%. 0.5” RO biochar treatment significantly reduced max by 8.8%, overall total emission by 52.9%, and total emission during 3-min agitation by 56.8%; 0.25” RO biochar treatment significantly reduced max by 61.3%, overall total emission by 86.1%, and total emission during 3-min agitation by 62.7%. For H2S, 0.5” HAP biochar treatment reduced the max by 42.5% (p=0.125), overall total emission by 17.9% (p=0.290), and significantly reduced the total emission during 3-min agitation by 70.4%; 0.25” HAP treatment reduced max by 60.6% (p=0.058), and significantly reduced overall and 3-min agitation’s total emission by 64.4% and 66.6%, respectively. 0.5” RO biochar treatment reduce the max flux by 23.6% (p=0.145), and significantly reduced overall and 3-min total emission by 39.3% and 62.4%, respectively; 0.25” RO treatment significantly reduced the max flux by 63%, overall total emission by 84.7%, and total emission during 3-min agitation by 67.4%.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document