• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 Additives for Improving Hog Farm Air Quality 
N
orth Carolina is the second largestproducer o hogs in the United States,with an on-arm inventory o 9.5 millionanimals in December 2006. These hogs aremostly raised over shallow pits (18 to 24inches deep) on slatted oors. Hog urineand eces, spilled eed, and water collectedin the pits are periodically emptied intoan anaerobic (absence o air or oxygen)lagoon. In the lagoon, anaerobic bacteria break down the organic material into sim-pler organic and inorganic compounds.However, during this process, organic gas-es (also called volatile organic compoundsor VOCs) and inorganic gases (e.g., am-monia, hydrogen sulfde) are produced.Many o these gases, individually or incombination, produce objectionable odors.Schiman and others (2001) identifed 331VOCs in hog barn air and lagoon wastesamples that contribute to odors.As the population o N.C. grows,people continue to move to the country-side. Subdivisions are built close to hogarms, and homeowners complain aboutthe air quality associated with hog pro-duction. In addition to smelling bad, somemanure gases can also aect the health othe animals and workers when they reachhigh concentrations in hog houses. Jonesand others (1997) showed that ammoniaconcentrations in the 10 to 15 ppm (partsper million) range reduced resistance toinection in hogs. Hence, while ammoniamay be only a minor component o hogodors (the major ones being hydrogen sul-fde and VOCs), both ammonia and otherodor emissions rom swine productioncan be reduced through use o technologyand management practices. Air qualityin hog production can be improved bydietary manipulation (e.g., reducing crudeprotein), technology (spraying oil in thehouses), management (regular washdowno pens), or additives. This paper ocuseson additives used in shallow pits and la-goons (Figure 1).
Additives
Additives or improving air quality byreducing emissions o ammonia, hydrogensulfde, and VOCs rom hog-house shal-low pits and lagoons all into eight catego-ries: (1) pH modifers and acidifers,(2) digestive additives, (3) oxidizing
Distributed in furtheranceof the Acts of Congress ofMay 8 and June 30, 1914.North Carolina State Uni-versity and North CarolinaA&T State University com-mit themselves to positiveaction to secure equalopportunity regardless ofrace, color, creed, nationalorigin, religion, sex, age, ordisability. In addition, thetwo Universities welcomeall persons without regardto sexual orientation. NorthCarolina State University,North Carolina A&T StateUniversity, U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, and localgovernments cooperating.
Figure 1. A bio-reactor is used orbreeding and in- jecting microbesand compressedair into a lagoonwith the goals o breaking downsludge and oxidiz-ing hydrogensulfde.
(Photo courtesy of Agriment Services, Inc.)
 
Additives
for
Improving
Hog Farm
 
Air Quality
 
 
 Additives for Improving Hog Farm Air Quality 
agents, (4) disinectants, (5) adsorbents, (6) enzymeinhibitors, (7) saponins rom yucca, and (8) maskingagents and counteractants (McCrory and Hobbs, 2001).A single additive is unlikely to provide benefts or mul-tiple gases, and, in act, while reducing the emission oone gas, it may increase the emission o another. Table1 lists additives that have shown potential in the lab orfeld in improving air quality in hog production. Table 2provides inormation on costs and sources o promisingadditives. Table 3 summarizes the potential advantagesand disadvantages o various types o additives. Prod-ucts that were evaluated in scientifc studies and arecurrently available were chosen or inclusion.
(1) pH modifers and acidifers. 
Changing the acidity(pH) o the waste can result in biochemical changes thatcan increase or decrease the ormation o certaingases. Increasing the pH to values greater than12 by using alkaline material like burnt lime(CaO) or slaked lime (Ca(OH)
2
) can destroyodor-producing organisms; increasing thepH would also reduce hydrogen sulfdeemissions. However, large amounts o suchadditives would be required in pits or la-goons, making their use uneconomical. In-creasing the pH would also increase ammoniaemissions.Acidifers, materials that reduce pH, are eec-tive in reducing ammonia emissions; however, theyincrease hydrogen sulfde emissions. Adding acids, acid-orming salts, and labile (unstable) carbon (C) can reducethe pH o the waste, resulting in more o the ammoniacal(ammonia plus ammonium) nitrogen being in the ormo ammonium rather than ammonia. The acidity also cre-ates unavorable conditions or the bacteria and enzymesthat contribute to ammonia ormation. While many typeso acid (e.g., hydrochloric, phosphoric, lactic) have beenound to be eective, they may not be cost eective orthey may pose saety concerns. For example, Hendriksand Vrielink (1997) reported that treating hog waste withAMGUARD (a compound containing acetic acid) waseective but expensive (Table 1, line 3).Acid-orming salts such as aluminum chloride,aluminum sulate (alum), erric chloride, and calciumphosphate, though not as eective as acids, are saer touse and less expensive. While acidifers avor the orma-tion o hydrogen sulfde, alum may increase hydrogensulfde emission more than other acidifers by addingsulur (Smith and others, 2001). Adding an acidiferdirectly to the lagoon to reduce ammonia emissionsmay be uneconomical: large quantities o acidifer will be required to overcome the waste’s buering capacity.Calcium phosphate will reduce ammonia emission butincrease the phosphorus (P) content o the waste, and,hence, its use is not recommended.Aluminum chloride solution added to shallow pitsreduced ammonia concentrations (Table 1, line 10) inthe hog house (Smith and others, 2004). It is estimatedthat 1,000 pounds o hogs (liveweight) will produce 65pounds o manure daily (ASAE D384.2, 2005). Assum-ing there will be an additional 5 pounds o wasted eedand water, at the highest rate o 0.75 percent aluminumchloride solution used by Smith and others (2004),about 8.5 ounces o aluminum chloride solution willhave to be added daily to the pit per 70 pounds (about8.4 gallons) o resh waste. (Suppliers sell only solutiono aluminum chloride; they do not sell bulk quanti-ties o commercial grade aluminum chloride salt.) Thealuminum chloride solution can be sprayed beneaththe slats over the pit liquid with a sprayer system ormetered into the ush tank or ushing systems. Sincea 5 percent aqueous solution o aluminum chloride hasa pH o 2.5 to 3.5 and will corrode metal, the solutionshould be sufciently diluted (as in the ush tank)and applied with a plastic spray system. Whilealuminum chloride may not help with otherodorous gases, it will conserve nitrogen (N)and reduce soluble P losses in runo whenthe waste is land-applied (Smith and others,2001). However, the volume o waste to behandled will be increased.Labile C will stimulate anaerobic mi-crobes in the waste to produce organic acids,thereby reducing the waste pH (McCroryand Hobbs, 2001). Hendriks and Vrielink (1997)ound labile C sources to be eective but expensive(Table 1, line 3) when used to reduce ammonia emis-sion. Its impact on total solids (or handling) shouldalso be considered. I suitable bacteria or producinglactic acid can be used, this method may prove eco-nomical in reducing ammonia emissions (McCrory andHobbs, 2001).
(2) Digestive additives.
Digestive additives may con-tain a mix o bacteria and/or enzymes that break downthe odorous compounds in the waste, thereby improv-ing air quality. Some manuacturers claim that theirproducts reduce ammonia emissions by converting theammonium to organic N. Some digestive additives arealso said to reduce total solids in the waste, thereby, im-proving waste handling.The success o digestive additives in improving airquality in hog production has been shown to be limited.While some studies showed varying levels o success (seeTable 1: Zhu and others, 1997, line 5; Chastain, 2000, line7; Heber and others, 2002, line 8; Schneegurt and others,2005, line 11), digestive additives ailed in other studies(e.g., Williams and Schiman, 1996, line 2; Warburtonand others, 1980). Among those digestive additivesevaluated recently, Bio-Kat (Table 1, line 11) may hold themost promise, as it improved both air quality and peror-mance at the arm scale (Schneegurt and others, 2005).There are reasons or the inconsistent perormanceo digestive additives. Depending on the types o bac-teria and/or enzymes in the additive, that ormulationmay reduce the concentration/s o only one or two
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...