Beneficial Use of Swine By-Products: Opportunities For The Future

Published 2000
Chapter 16
Beneficial Use of Swine By-Products:

Opportunities for the Future
ROBERT L. MIKKELSEN, North Carolina State University,

Raleigh, North Carolina
The U.S. pork industry, like many other agricultural enterprises, is undergoing
tremendous restructuring as production moves towards a greater degree of inte-
gration and specialization. Economic efficiencies related to the size of production
facilities have led to a rapid centralization of the swine production industry that is
still underway (Kliebenstein & Lawrence, 1995).
Swine production in the USA has historically revolved around relatively small
and diversified farms. Pork production was primarily centered in the Com Belt states
because of the abundant supply of reasonably inexpensive feed. These farms typ-
ically followed the conventional pattern of grain and swine production, using lo-
cally produced feeds. The livestock manure, when returned to the land, provided
an essential nutrient source for the grain production required to sustain the cycle.
Pork producers typically had a complete farrow-to-finish operation, where animals
were bred, born and raised to market weight on one farm.
American swine production is now in the midst of a trend toward fewer, larger,
and more specialized farms (Fig. 16-1). For several reasons, there has been an in-
crease in the size of the farms, vertical integration, and contract production
(Lawrence et aI., 1997). A study by McBride (1995) showed that both feed and labor
efficiencies were significantly greater and death losses lower for hogs raised under
contractual arrangements than for hogs produced independently. Polson and Hud-
son (1990) found that volume purchasing by swine producers leads to significant
price discounts and that premiums are commonly paid for high-quality hogs when
sold in a larger volume.
It is clear that swine production is rapidly becoming more specialized, con-
centrated, and industrialized, and these changes are expected to accelerate
(Lawrence, 1992). In fact, Hayenga (1994) stated that large "integrated hog pro-
duction and packing operations by Seaboard Corporation, Smithfield, and Premium
Standard Farms may be the tip of the iceberg of emerging structural change in the
pork slaughter industry".
The segregation of pigs during various growth stages also has become a com-
mon practice. Separation by age allows feeding and nutritional programs to be op-
Copyright K) 2000. Soil Science Society of America, 677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711, USA. Land
Application of Agricultural. [ndustrial. and Municipal By-Products-SSSA Book Series no. 6.
451
452 MIKKELSEN
timized and housing conditions maintained appropriately to minimize animal stress.

There are four primary types of swine operations. In feeder pig production, the pro-
ducer maintains a breeding herd and produces "feeder" pigs for sale at an average
weight of 20 kg. A feeder-to-finish farm will purchase feeder pigs and raise them
Iowa
1974 1978 1982
1987 1992 1997
~ I::. . ··t} ···.··· 1

<1000 1000 to 2000 to >5000
2000 5000
North Carolina
1974 1978 1982
1987 1992 1997
~ 1:;;,1;(: 1
<1000 1000 to 2000 to >5000
2000 5000
Fig. 16-1. The farm size (number of swine raised per farm) responsible for swine production in Iowa
(a) and North Carolina (b) since 1974 (from the U.S. Dep. Commerce, 1994).
SWINE BY-PRODUCTS 453
to slaughter weight (100-120 kg). On a farrow-to-finish farm, breeding and feed-

ing to market weight are done on the same farm. Finally, a seedstock operation is
devoted to the production and maintenance of breeding boars.
In some parts of the world there has been increasing public concern with
swine-production practices that are perceived to be excessively confining for the
animals. Concerns over animal welfare and housing conditions have led to legis-
lation in certain European countries regulating swine housing conditions. For ex-
ample, current regulations in Germany require that sows have at least 4 wk out of
their stalls or crates during pregnancy. However this freedom of movement can make
it more difficult for the farmer to monitor sow health and the progression of ges-
tation. Regulations in the UK completely prohibit the use of sow stalls and tethers.
Additional regulations on the swine-raising environment include rules on the type
of ventilation systems, special accommodations for sick animals, proper lighting
and adequate lying areas. Other concerns relative to animal welfare in the produc-
tion of swine include tail docking, teeth clipping, castration, early weaning, and ap-
propriate handling and transport. As this trend towards regulation of animal wel-
fare increases, changes in housing and production practices will certainly influence
the production and quality of swine manure by-products.
SWINE MANURE PRODUCTION
As with all domestic livestock, the overall retention of the nutrients consumed
in feed by swine is relatively low. In general, at least 75% of the N, 80% of the P,
and 85% of the K contained in swine feed is excreted. Swine urine comprises ap-
proximately 40% of the total weight of swine excrement and contains nearly 50%
of the N, 4% of the P and 55% ofthe K. Clearly, management of nutrients from the
urine fraction of swine excrement must be included as an important part of the over-
all nutrient handling strategy.
Unlike manure collected from grazing animals, the initial nutrient content of
swine manure is relatively constant on farms with similar production methods. This
is because swine are fed diets consisting primarily of corn (Zea mays L.)/grain
sorghum (Sorghum vulgare L.), and soybean (Glycine max Merrill) meal, with added
minerals and vitamins. Any differences in the nutrient composition of manure
largely can be attributed to variations in the method of collection, dilution, storage,
or stage of animal growth.
Typical chemical and physical properties of swine manure have been well
characterized in a number of reports (Table 16-1). However, the manure charac-
teristics and the quantities generated also can be affected by specific animal fac-
tors (such as the size, breed, sex, level of activity), the environment (housing, tem-
perature, humidity), and the diet (protein, digestibility, fiber content, amount of
mineral supplements). Using "average" values for estimating the nutrient concen-
tration of manure may be attractive due to occasional delays and costs associated
with sampling and chemical analysis, however these assumptions can frequently
be erroneous. For example, Payne (1986) found that the N concentration in swine
manure ranged from 1.8 to 5.0% due to variations in feed composition. Similarly,
Wilhelm et aI. (1980) reported that the N concentration in three similarly operated
454 MIKKELSEN
Table 16-1. Average manure production by swine excluding bedding, (adapted from Ensminger & Parker,
1984)·t
Daily manure Annual manure
Production stage Average weight production production
kg cm3 m3
Sow and litter 180 19000 6.9
Prenursery pig 10 850 0.3
Nursery pig 25 2000 0.7
Growing pig 55 4000 1.5
Finishing pig 85 7000 2.6
Gestating sow 150 5700 2.1
Boar 180 7000 2.6
t Includes solids and liquids, including additional 15% from waterers and washwater (average density
of manure is 960 kg m- 3).
lagoons ranged from 309 to 938 mg NIL. Clanton et ai. (1991) reported changes in
swine manure characteristics as the animals were exposed to variations in envi-
ronment and feed, as well as changes in animal size. Clearly, using "average" nu-
trient concentrations is not appropriate, given the range in nutrient composition
found in manure, slurries, and effiuent (Campbell et ai., 1997). Progress has been
made in estimating the N concentration and potential nutrient availability for plants
from various organic materials, but these methods can not yet replace traditional
laboratory analysis.
OUTDOOR PRODUCTION
Swine were once commonly raised in outdoor pasture situations. Although

this practice is much less common that it once was, there may be situations where
this production technique remains desirable. In moderate climates, for example, out-
door production has much lower start-up costs compared with specialized swine
houses. Rotational grazing, gleaning of harvested fields, and specially planted
crops for swine forage [e.g., clover (Trifolium species) and turnip (Brassica rapa
L.)] are all useful practices for outdoor swine production. In some countries, the
shift to outside swine herds is in response to new animal welfare laws that outlaw
crates and tethers.
Although start-up and operational expenses are considerably less for outdoor
swine production, economic factors such as depreciation rates and land requirements
also must be considered (McGlone, 1996). Manure from outdoor-raised pigs is not
easily recoverable and is spread nonuniformly over the land. This makes it diffi-
cult to use the manure for anything other than a plant nutrient source.
MANURE AND BY-PRODUCT TREATMENT
Much of the economic analysis of by-product treatment and utilization has

viewed manure management as a factor separate from animal management. How-
No
Treatment - - Land Spreading
Aerobic Land Spread in g

,--_1',;;.'; . ;re"",a;.; tl. ;.;TI..;:;.el;. ;.1t,--...- Biomass Production
.----:-A-n-a-e-ro""'!'b""'!'i-c-,--+ Biogas Generation

Treatment -~ Land Spreading
'----'--"=::.;.;.;..:.="'----'-- Bi0 mass Prod ucti 0 n
6
Biogas Generation
r-------,--I~
~
Liquid
~
.
Land Spreadmg
Separation Biomass Production
• Composting
Solid -~ Vermicomposting
Animal Feed
-~ Land Sp reading
Intensive Processing
Fig. 16-2. Various options for handling and treating swine waste.
ever, this short-term perspective does not properly reflect the complexity of mod-
em livestock production. Since animal weight gain and manure are coproduced,
there exists a feedback relationship between manure management decisions and ma-
nure production practices. For example, if the costs associated with manure man-
agement begin to significantly decrease the profit from animal rearing, overall pro-
duction decisions should be altered to account for this.
The optimal combination oftreatment and application technologies for an in-
dividual farm depends on the "value" of manure (Hoag & Roka, 1995). If the value
of the swine manure is judged to be greater than potential treatment costs (e.g., as
a fertilizer replacement), management options will be considered (Stonehouse &
Narayanan, 1984; Honeyman, 1996) that might not be feasible where the net value
of manure is deemed negative (Schnitkey & Miranda, 1993). When the "value" of
manure is determined, the potential benefits need to be considered along with the
costs incurred in transportation and application of the material. Treatment and
transportation costs must be considered as part of the net value of manure. Addi-
tionally, the "nutrient value" of swine manure should only be calculated as the com-
mercial fertilizer actually replaced and not merely the total value of all the nutri-
ents contained in a given quantity of manure.
When making treatment decisions, the swine producer is faced with a com-
plex set of multiple management options. The decisions regarding manure gener-
ation, treatment, storage, utilization, and land application all are integral parts of a
successful and comprehensive swine production plan.
A number of techniques have been utilized for both the disposal and benefi-
cial use of swine manure. Some examples include land application, methane gas
456 MIKKELSEN
Table 16-2. Influence of swine house design and manure management systems on environment condi-
tions (adapted from Smith, 1994).t
Relative space Temperature Pen shape Air Pen
Floor type required gradient constraints quality hygiene
Fully slatted 100 No No Poor Good
Part slatted 104 Yes Yes Moderate Moderate
Part scraped 104-120 Yes Yes Moderate Moderate
Deep bedded 245 Yes No Good Moderate
Sloping 100-110 Yes Yes Good Moderate
In situ composting 160 No No Good Moderate
t Extreme variations may occur due to day-to-day management on an individual farm.
(biogas) production, evaporation, NH3 production, solid separation, hydrolysis, hy-

drogenation, composting, animal refeeding, and use as a substrate in plant and mi-
crobial protein synthesis (Fig. 16-2). The feasibility of any of these techniques varies
considerably due to geographic location and economic considerations. Although
many of these technologies are still in the testing phase, a combination of tech-
nologies may prove to be more suitable than anyone alone. However as disposal
costs escalate and regulations become more restrictive, a re-examination of alter-
native management practices and technologies will be necessary.
MANURE HANDLING SYSTEMS
Manure from swine farms are generally handled as either: (i) solid from bed-
ded areas or drained floors, (ii) semiliquid or slurry from bare floors, or (iii) liquid
from under slotted floors or runoff from under pens (Table 16-2). The composi-
tion and properties of the manure will vary according to the size of pig, the type of
feed, the amount of bedding, and the manure handling system. Among domestic
livestock, swine produce more manure per live weight than any other species (En-
sminger & Parker, 1984).
The most appropriate treatment of swine by-products will vary depending on
the objectives and resources of the individual producer. For example, treatment of
swine manure may be carried out with the primary objectives of conservation of
plant nutrients, reduction in nutrient load, minimization of odors, the reduction of
solid accumulation in ponds, or some combination of these and other factors.
Decisions regarding a specific biological treatment and land application plan
require many considerations beyond nutrient content. Treatment options may range
from minimal (storage pit) to intensive composting. The by-product management
plan should maximize economic and environmental benefits, while allowing the pro-
ducer to remain in compliance with legal guidelines. Often the grower faces the
choice between investing in treatment technology or acquiring sufficient land for
manure application. Local constraints to land application frequently narrow the crop
selection and also may require the purchase of additional field equipment. More
intensive by-product treatment may allow higher application rates and reduce the
amount of land needed for application, but incur greater processing expense.
TREATMENT FACILITIES
Ponds and Lagoons
Ponds or lagoons provide a relatively inexpensive and simple means of treat-
ing swine by-products on the fann with the objective of reducing the nutrient con-
tent and biological activity prior to subsequent application to land (Andreadakis,
1992). Lagoons typically contain large populations of microbes that thrive on the
abundant supply of regularly added fresh organic matter. Swine lagoons are usu-
ally classified as either aerobic, facultative, or anaerobic depending on the O 2 sta-
tus in the liquid. The dissolved O2 concentration in the lagoon determines the mi-
crobial population in the liquid and the fate of added swine by-products. The
concentrated swine manure that first enters the lagoon, or the first lagoon in a mul-
tistage system, generally causes the liquid to become anaerobic due to the high bio-
chemical oxygen demand (BOD) of the incoming material. Anaerobic lagoons are
popular because inefficient bacterial growth due to low concentrations of dis-
solved O2 causes much of the organic matter to convert to methane. The methane
and other organic gases diffuse from the lagoon liquid into the atmosphere and the
O 2 demand is reduced 75 to 85%.
Anaerobic digestion is carried out by a diverse group of bacteria. A range of
fermentative bacteria is responsible for the initial hydrolysis and fennentation of
incoming organic materials, resulting in intennediary substrates such as succinate
and lactate. During the next step (acetogenesis), actetate, H2 and carbon dioxide are
the primary by-products. The last step of anaerobic digestion results in methano-
genesis (Marty, 1986).
Nitrogen is readily lost from anaerobic swine lagoons through NH3 volatiliza-
tion. It is estimated that as much as 50 to 75% ofthe N entering the lagoon may be
subsequently lost via volatilization (Mikkelsen, 1997). This loss of N to the at-
mosphere greatly reduces the nutrient concentration of the lagoon liquid. Since most
effluent applications to cropland are currently based on the N concentration of the
liquid, N loss via volatilization allows a greater volume of liquid to be applied to
a given area ofland. From 15 to 30% of the excreted N is volatilized using storage
pits compared with 70 to 95% volatilization losses using an anaerobic lagoon
(MWPS, 1985). In situations where manure disposal issues are more pressing than
nutrient conservation (for example with a limited land base accessible for applica-
tion), using an anaerobic lagoon may encourage the volatilization ofNH 3. The re-
gional impacts of widespread NH3 volatilization are not yet understood.
Anaerobic treatment lagoons do not facilitate regular P removal. A large frac-
tion ofthe P entering the lagoon accumulates in sludge at the bottom of the pond.
The P-containing sludge is generally removed from the lagoon at infrequent inter-
vals (10-20 yr) and applied to surrounding land at rates to meet the N requirement
of the crops. This practice results in an overapplication of P, as do most repeated
applications of manure.
Aerobic Ponds
Manure treatment ponds can be maintained in an aerobic state by regularly

pumping air into the liquid. Aeration helps minimize odors, nitrity much of the am-
458 MIKKELSEN
monium, and stabilize organic materials via oxidation compared with anaerobic
treatment. Although this technology is common in many municipal and industrial
processes, it is not as common on swine farms due to the expense of continuously
operating a mechanical aerator and complications associated with the process
(CAST, 1995). However, significant reduction in odor and minimization ofNH3
volatilization can be achieved through this practice. Aerobic treatment ponds gen-
erally result in greater production of microbial biomass compared with anaerobic
lagoons.
Multi-Stage Treatment Ponds
A multistage system or series oflagoons can be used to combine some of the

beneficial features of each type of treatment. For example, by-products may first
enter an aerobic lagoon or subsection of a large lagoon for initial oxidation of or-
ganic matter, nitrification, and odor control. The liquid then passes to an anaero-
bic zone where the solid fraction is further treated and the nitrate removed through
denitrification. This aerobic/anaerobic treatment process further reduces the N
concentration in the liquid and allows a greater volume ofliquid to be applied to a
given area of cropland. Anaerobic lagoons are usually smaller than aerobic lagoons
and decompose more organic matter per unit of volume, but aerobic lagoons gen-
erally provide a higher degree oftreatment with less odor production. A second la-
goon also may provide valuable storage capacity for the treated liquid.
Other Treatment Processes
Treatment ofliquid swine manure and deliberate loss ofN can be similarly
accomplished in sequencing batch reactors that utilize alternating aerobic and
anaerobic conditions (Fernandes et aI., 1991). Aerobic bioreactors also can achieve
primary treatment of liquid swine manure prior to discharge of the final effiuent
for algae cultivation (Doyle & de la Noue, 1987). Aerated reactors using biofilm
percolation systems for maintaining a trickle-type filter have been shown to ac-
celerate initial nitrification and denitrification in liquid swine manure (Boiran et ai.,
1996). An additional approach is to use intermittent aeration in a single-activated
sludge reactor in order to alternate between nitrification and denitrification (Liao
et ai., 1993). This approach resulted in a BOD reduction of between 92 and 98%,
with a reduction in total N of between 59 to 70%.
There may be insufficient soluble C in the swine effluent following the ni-
trification step for optimal denitrification. Handbooks for wastewater treatment com-
monly suggest methanol as a source ofC substrate in these situations (EPA, 1975),
however, many soluble C sources have been used for this purpose. For example,
molasses is effective at stimulating denitrification from swine effiuent leaving a ni-
trification reactor (ten Have et ai., 1994).
Methods of chemical precipitation ofN and P from the swine liquid leaving
digesters or lagoons prior to discharge have relied on additions of amendments such
as alum [AliS04h], hydrated lime [Ca(OH)2] or zirconium tetrachloride (ZrCI 4)
(e.g., Couture et ai., 1988; Barrington & MacKenzie, 1989). Potential disadvantages
of this approach to removing soluble nutrients from liquid swine manure involve
Table 16-3. The fraction ofN, P and solids found in different size fractions in flushed swine manure
(adapted from Hill & Tollner, 1980).
Large particles Medium particles Small particles & dissolved

(>1.0 mm) (1.0-0.1 mm) «0.1 mm)
%
Total solids 33 12 55
N 15 15 70
P 15 27 58
the subsequent disposal ofthe accumulated chemical sludge and the on-going cost
of amendments.
SOLID SEPARATORS
Removal of swine manure solids from the farm waste stream is frequently
the first step in allowing the material to be processed into more valuable products
that can be marketed and used off the farm. However, many of the common tech-
niques for concentrating swine manure solids do not result in a significant reduc-
tion in nutrient content due to the small-sized particles «O.1-mm diam.) that are
frequently not trapped, nor in significant odor reduction (Table 16-3). A combi-
nation of improved separation technology and higher demand for separated solids
will help make this process more efficient. Several types of solid separators are cur-
rently used on a limited basis on swine farms.
Screened Solid Separators
A number of screen-type separators are available with various designs to re-

move swine manure solids. Perhaps the most common models involve a stationary
inclined screen over which the manure and liquid pass. After separation, the solids
are generally allowed to drain to minimize their volume and to become stackable
(about 10% dry matter) while the liquid drains into a reservoir. The screens must
be maintained periodically to prevent crusting and subsequent loss of efficiency.
Centrifugal Separators
Centrifugal separators remove the solids from the liquids by means of a per-
forated rotating cylinder that allows the passage of water, but retains the solids. This
type of separator may remove more solids and reduce the moisture content more
than the screen-type separator, but does not generally remove a significantly greater
proportion of nutrients. They typically operate slower and with a higher energy de-
mand than the screen-type separators.
Other Separators
Other techniques and equipment have been used with varying degrees of suc-
cess to separate solids from swine manure slurries. Separators using presses, where
460 MIKKELSEN
the manure passes between spring-loaded rubber rollers, have been successfully
used. Belt presses also have been demonstrated to effectively remove liquid from
swine manure slurries. Other solid separators operate using compression from hy-
draulically driven screws or rams to remove liquid from the wet manure. The eco-
nomics and utility ofthese separators needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis
with a clear end-use for the separated solids in mind.
Further removal of solids from wastewater can be accomplished with chem-
ical flocculation or coagulation. For example, Sievers et al. (1994) reported that pH
manipulation (pH> 9) was effective at promoting coagulation of swine wastewater.
Additionally, they reported that several synthetic polymers and chitosan were ef-
fective at removing swine solids. Similarly, addition of small amounts of poly-
acrylamide to dilute wastewater results in much more efficient removal of suspended
solids in mechanical separators (80%) compared with nontreated wastewater
(5-20%) (Vanotti et aI., 1999).
The use of membrane filters may someday be useful in separation of swine
solids. For example, Bilstad et al. (1992) reported on a process in which anaerobi-
cally digested swine manure was first mechanically dewatered through a screw-type
press. The resulting liquid fraction was then passed through a reverse osmosis mem-
brane that removed 95% of the N from the liquid fraction. Polycarbonate, screen-
type membranes also are effective in removing solids and microorganisms at vary-
ing pore sizes. Bobbitt and Betts (1992) reported that screen-type membranes can
selectively remove bacteria from solution when the pore size of the membrane fil-
ter is progressively changed (0.22-12.0 )lm). The feasibility of using membrane fil-
ters for nutrient, microbial, and solid separation of swine manure has not yet been
demonstrated on a large scale.
INDOOR MANURE STORAGE
Many swine production facilities feature manure storage structures below slat-
ted floors. The manure accumulates in a liquid form (approximately 10% solids)
to allow handling and cleaning with water. Manure is commonly stored for 12 to
36 wk (3-9 mo) before clean-out and application to cropland where it is used as a
source of plant nutrients. Aboveground prefabricated tanks also are commonly used
to provide 12 to 48 wk (3-12 mo) of temporary storage. These aboveground tanks
typically cost more per unit of storage capacity because of their stringent require-
ments for structural strength and the need for additional transfer equipment.
When manure is stored inside a building or tank, gases emitted from micro-
bial processes may create a potentially hazardous environment and undesirable
odors. Unless the manure is agitated and maintained in an aerobic state, anaerobic
digestion results in the release of>40 different gases, many of which are toxic or
irritating (Donham et aI., 1977). Common gases produced during manure decom-
position include H 2 S, CH 4 , NH 3, and CO2 , Potential human and animal health prob-
lems from the atmosphere within a swine facility include irritation ofthe eyes, mu-
cous membranes, and the respiratory tract from H 2S and NH3 (Donham et aI.,
1988). Acute toxic exposure to H 2 S and explosions from CH 4 have been reported.
Consequently, no one should enter a manure storage tank without proper precau-
tions such as adequate ventilation, nearby assistance, and proper breathing equip-
ment. Fatalities regularly occur when these safety measures are overlooked.
Adequate ventilation of swine barns is the most effective way to eliminate
harmful accumulation of gases from the manure, but ventilation rates are typically
based on the need for cooling and moisture removal, not elimination of potentially
harmful gases. Sutton et al. (1987) suggested that addition of water to the manure
pit and frequent flushing can reduce NH3 concentrations in the swine bam atmos-
phere to concentrations that are not harmful to animals or workers.
DISPOSAL OF TREATED LIQUID
Irrigation
The decisions relative to the application of the liquid phase of treated swine
manure onto surrounding cropland depend on the grower's primary objectives and
legal restrictions. Regulations in most regions stipulate that swine liquid may only
be applied to an actively growing crop or applied immediately prior to planting a
crop that will utilize the nutrients contained in the liquid (especially N). However,
within these general guidelines, the liquid may be applied to either the smallest area
possible (e.g., to minimize application or land costs), or over a larger area to max-
imize the efficiency ofthe nutrients.
The treated liquid may be applied to land using several techniques. Flood ir-
rigation, fixed sprinklers, traveling irrigation systems, and center-pivot systems are
all successfully used to apply dilute swine eftluent to cropland. A variety of ma-
nure spreaders are commonly used to apply more concentrated slurries and manure
to cropland.
Although swine manure is an excellent source of essential plant nutrients when
added to cropland, little attention has been given to the minor chemical compounds
present, some of which have been shown to be phytotoxic. For example, swine ma-
nure contains fatty acids that can significantly inhibit seed germination, with long-
chained fatty acids being more toxic than short-chain acids (Edney & Rizvi, 1996).
Other phytotoxic organic compounds (such as phenolic compounds) may persist
in anaerobic conditions, yet are degraded relatively rapidly when stored in an aer-
obic environment (Ishaque et aI., 1985)
Evaporation
As swine production expands into arid and semiarid regions, the use of evap-
oration ponds may become more common. This practice is most successful where
evaporation greatly exceeds precipitation and where large areas of flat, relatively
impermeable land are available. When designing an evaporation pond, it should be
noted that water loss from the ponds will likely be less than published evaporation
rates due to the formation of crusts on pond surfaces that act as a barrier to water
loss. It may be advantageous to have a series of ponds, where the first pond serves
as a solid-settling basin and subsequent ponds serving as evaporation ponds. This
may minimize crusting problems and facilitate periodic removal of the sludge. With
this management system, large evaporation ponds are flooded with 0.3 m of eftlu-
462 MIKKELSEN
ent. Within a few weeks, the evaporation pond is generally dry and additional ef-
fluent can be added. After many months, the accumulated solids can be removed
and added to cropland.
USING MANURE AS A NUTRIENT SOURCE
For centuries, the productivity of crops and grasslands has relied upon nu-
trient inputs from organic materials and animal manures. Therefore the historic value
of swine manure has been primarily as a source of nutrients for crop production.
However the availability of relatively inexpensive synthetic fertilizers during the
past 50 yr, coupled with the increasing cost and labor associated with collecting,
hauling, and spreading manure, has diminished its value as a nutrient source. As
the swine industry moves towards further concentration oflarge animal operations
within a geographic region, the limited agricultural land available for manure
spreading adjacent to farms magnifies the limitations of using manure solely as a
nutrient source (Barker & Zublena, 1996). Although primarily applied to land as a
source ofN, swine manure also effectively provides P, K, and other essential plant
nutrients. There is abundant data to show the effectiveness of swine manure as a
fertilizer source that will not be reviewed here (e.g., CAST, 1995). However, it is
important to briefly address the factors that determine the value of swine manure
as a nutrient source and certain management practices that should be considered.
The nutrient content of swine manure can be highly variable, which is not sur-
prising considering the wide range in production practices and manure management
strategies. Without knowledge ofthe nutrient concentration, it is impossible to man-
age manure in the most appropriate manner. There are no widely accepted meth-
ods for determining the nutrient content of manure on the farm.
The mineralization of nutrients from organic to inorganic forms also will im-
pact the nutrient value of the swine manure. With swine manure treated in anaer-
obic lagoons, the majority of the effluent-N is present as NH4-N (>85%) and is read-
ily available for plant uptake. However, when the manure is handled as a solid, a
slurry, or when containing bedding material, much of the total N may still be pre-
sent as organic N-containing compounds. Nitrogen mineralization rates are com-
monly estimated based on the properties of the by-product material and the antic-
ipated soil environmental conditions following application, but this aspect of
nutrient management is still not as precise as needed (Mikkelsen, 1996).
Volatile losses ofNH 3 following application of swine manure to the soil can
be significant. Nitrogen losses as high as 50% or more of the applied N via NH3
volatilization are commonly observed following surface application of slurries
and effluent. This volatilization loss will vary greatly depending on soil properties,
environmental conditions, by-product characteristics, and application methods.
Application techniques such as subsurface injection or plowing immediately after
manure additions can virtually eliminate all volatile NH3 loss. The addition of swine
manure also may stimulate denitrification losses from the soil since large amounts
ofC, N, and water are simultaneously applied to the soil.
The use of swine manure as a N source for plant nutrition generally results
in overapplication of other essential nutrients. An accumulation ofP and trace el-
Table 16-4. Comparison of swine manure management in Iowa and North Carolina based on economic
optimization (adapted from Roka, 1993).
Iowa North Carolina
Primary receiver crop Corn Bermuda grass

Production environment
Crop yield High Low
Manure value High Low
Climate Cool Warm
Treatment costs High Low
Management systems
N losses Low High
Level oftreatment Low High
Transportation method Haul slurry Irrigate from lagoons
ements (e.g., Zn and Cu) typically occurs with repeated swine manure applications
(Mikkelsen, 1995). This build-up occurs as the application of nutrients exceeds the
quantity removed in harvested crops, drainage, and surface losses. The site-specific
characteristics of a field and the soil buffering capacity will determine the envi-
ronmental impact ofthis long-term accumulation. The potential negative effects of
this nutrient build-up on soil and water quality, plant nutrition, and grazing animals
are not well known.
The value of swine manure as a nutrient source to replace commercial fer-
tilizers is clearly evident for farms that grow crops and have adequate land for ap-
plication. However, for swine farms not involved in crop production or farms that
do not have livestock for grazing, the economic value of swine manure, relative to
commercial fertilizers, is more difficult to measure. In a comparison of swine pro-
duction in Iowa and North Carolina, Roka (1993) reported that North Carolina pro-
ducers have relatively low crop yields, therefore they have a low "perceived" value
of manure and aim for low treatment costs. A different situation exists for Iowa swine
producers who use minimal treatment and apply the manure to com, a crop that
brings higher economic returns than bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon L. Pers.)
(Table 16-4). The conditions in these two states clearly offer differing incentives
for managing manure-derived nutrients.
Swine manure application rates must be adjusted according to the agronomic
requirements of the crop and the site-specific characteristics ofthe field (Mikkelsen
& Gilliam, 1995). Crop yields may be depressed by excessive rates of manure ap-
plication. Elevated nutrient concentrations in groundwater also can result from in-
appropriate application. Overapplication of manure can possibly result in harmful
concentrations of nitrate in forage crops, as well as grass tetany, fescue toxicity, and
fat necrosis.
Sainsbury (1983) reported that application of manure slurry could be a mech-
anism for spreading harmful organisms onto soil and pastures. This practice is es-
pecially associated with Salmonella and Escherichia coli, but Sainsbury also sug-
gests that other organisms such as Bacissul anthracis, Mycobacterium tuberculosis,
Clostridia ssp., and Leptospira ssp. also could survive in manure slurry. It has been
found that salmonella infection can be spread onto soil through slurry and that ac-
tive organisms can survive in slurry for at least 12 wk (3 mo) (West, 1976). Like-
464 MIKKELSEN
wise, pig manure has been noted as a source oftrichomoniaisis in cattle, caused by
the protozoan parasite Trichomonas suis. The presence of active swine enteroviruses
also may influence the use of swine manure products. Derbyshire et al. (1986) re-
ported the highest viral frequency in raw manure, with decreasing frequency ob-
served as the degree of anaerobic digestion increased. However, they regularly de-
tected the presence of swine enteroviruses in manure samples, regardless of the
degree of anaerobic processing.
ODOR MANAGEMENT
One major limitation to improved utilization of swine manure is the objec-

tionable and distinctive odor. Odor from swine manure results from a complex mix-
ture of gases including organic acids and volatile N-based and S-based compounds.
Considerable effort is underway to evaluate various amendments that can be added
to the manure to reduce odor release. For example, Zhu et al. (1997) reported on
five odor-control additives that were effective in reducing odor from stored swine
manure. Several of the additives also were effective in reducing the concentration
of volatile fatty acids.
An alternative approach to reducing odor emissions is to modity the swine
diet. For example Farnworth (1995) reported that addition of a small amount of
Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) to swine diets made a noticeable im-
provement in the smell ofthe swine manure. Other feed additives that influence the
microbial population in the swine digestive tract also might result in improvements
in odor problems.
As an alternative to additives (such as chemicals and enzymes) for odor con-
trol, researchers have shown that air scrubbers and air filters can be effective at re-
moving particulate matter and odor from swine-production facilities. Other odor
management options include covering the surface of the stored manure with crop
residues or low density floating material to form a physical barrier that seals the
surface from the atmosphere, or installation of wet pad scrubbers and microbial
biofilters.
Odor complaints also may arise during land application of the manure. Com-
plaints following slurry application are reduced when the manure is injected beneath
the soil surface instead of spread on the surface. Injecting the manure also results
in conservation of much of the N that would otherwise be volatilized from the soil
surface. Odor from irrigated effluent also may be objectionable in some conditions.
The planting of windbreaks to divert airflow away from neighbors may prove
valuable for odor control.
DIET MANIPULATION
It is possible to change the nutrient characteristics of swine manure by mod-

itying the diet (Honeyman, 1993). Much ofthe P present in the grain components
of swine feed is indigestible. Phosphorus digestibility of feeds by swine ranges from
25 to 35% for soybean meal to only 10% for maize (Cromwell, 1990, Ravindran,
1996). As much as 60 to 70% ofthe total P in grains is present as indigestible phytic

acid compounds (inositol). This phytate can only be utilized for animal nutrition
following enzymatic hydrolysis, dependent on the activity of phytase enzymes. In
monoruminant animals, such as swine and poultry, this enzyme is not present, or
present only in small quantities. As a result, a growing pig on typical feed rations
will excrete more than 60% of the P in the feed and a breeding sow will excrete
more than 85%. Given the poor utilization of P in grains, the traditional approach
for supplying adequate P is to supplement feed with a source of inorganic P, such
as dicalcium phosphate.
There is increasing concern about the enrichment of soils and waters result-
ing from overapplication of P to soils from animal manures. For example, when
swine effluent is used as a N fertilizer source for bermudagrass hay, 2.5 to 3 times
more P is applied to the crop than is removed in the harvested crop. One approach
to reducing P excretion by swine is to add phytase enzymes to the feed, which al-
lows the pigs to digest at least 30% more P in the grain (Coelho & Kornegay, 1996).
Less P mineral supplement is then required for nutritional purposes and less P is
excreted in the manure. The addition of phytase also has been shown to increase
digestion and utilization of other essential minerals, such as Cu, Ca, Mg, and Zn
(Davies & Nightingale, 1975).
Another approach to reducing P excretion in swine manure is to use feed
grains that are already low in phytic acid. There are currently experimental vari-
eties of com available that have as much as 60% less phytic acid than traditional
varieties (Raboy & Gerbasi, 1996). Growth and feed digestibility of swine fed this
low phytic acid com appear to be satisfactory (Spencer et ai., 1998).
It may be possible to minimize N excretion by adjusting feed rations to re-
duce the protein content of swine feed to more closely meet the precise nutritional
requirements. When the protein content in swine feed is lowered by 1%, the N ex-
cretion is reduced by approximately 10% (Evans, 1995). In the USA, it is common
to feed a "grower" diet (30-60 kg wt) and a "finisher" diet (60-100 kg). By in-
creasing this to as many as three or four different diets precisely adjusted for the
stage of growth, it may be possible to further reduce nutrient excretion (Lenis, 1989).
However, in lowering the overall protein content of the feed, it may be necessary
to supplement the feed with synthetic amino acids (such as lysine, methionine, thre-
onine, and tryptophan) to maintain growth. Several commercial blends of synthetic
amino acids and enzymes are currently available as feed enhancers. This approach
would require a higher degree of management and multiphase ration adjustment as
the nutritional needs of the growing pigs change. The economics of such an approach
towards feed manipulation also would have to be considered and compared with
other options of handling the manure-derived N.
SWINE BY-PRODUCT UTILIZATION
Future developments in swine by-product processing include better utiliza-

tion of these products as a resource. Enhanced utilization may include combina-
tions of wet oxidation, electrophoresis, enzyme technology or anaerobic water treat-
ment. Solid by-products generated from these various technologies may be used as
466 MIKKELSEN
a source of nutrients, soil conditioners, or possibly for industrial purposes. The solid
fraction of swine manure may be best suited for separation of specific amino acids
and proteins, or substrate for algae fed to animals and fish. Perhaps manure could
be used as a raw material for production ofNH3, ammonium phosphate, carbon diox-
ide, fats, and oils. However, each ofthese products has its own established market
and these processed manure derivatives would face stiff economic competition. An
additional obstacle to increased use of refining/separation technology may be the
difficulty in removing ingredients such as antibiotics, disinfectants, and trace met-
als from swine manure. The variable chemical and physical properties of swine ma-
nure will likely pose a challenge for processing also. Some of the more promising
uses for swine manure are presented here.
MANURE AS A FEED SUPPLEMENT
As more swine are raised in confinement, there will be more opportunities

to beneficially reuse by-products on the farm. Refeeding swine manure solids to
other animals is one practice that will potentially increase the utilization of feed-
derived nutrients and improve overall feed conversion efficiency. Less is known
about the refeeding of swine manure than with poultry or cattle manure. Addi-
tionally, the majority ofthe studies on refeeding swine manure have been relatively
short term in duration. Recycling swine manure as a feed source also raises ques-
tions about animal health. However, concerns regarding potentially pathogenic bac-
teria from properly processed by-products do not appear to be significant (e.g., Mc-
Caskey & Wang, 1985).
Refeeding of swine manure is generally done following separation ofthe solid
fraction from the liquid. Dry matter digestibility of swine manure fed to swine was
reported to be 50%, while the amino acid digestibility ranged from 51 to 65% (Ko-
rnegay et aI., 1977). When dried swine manure was substituted in cattle diets, the
dry matter digestibility was reported to be 31 %. There are numerous examples of
refeeding processed swine manure on an experimental basis, but there has not yet
been widespread adoption of this practice.
Swine manure has a relatively high water content and tends to degrade
rapidly when stored. The high costs of drying swine manure have led to the ex-
ploration of other processing options for converting swine by-products into feed.
Mixing solid swine manure with a cellulosic material to produce silage has been
shown to be an attractive possibility (Berger et aI., 1981). For example, ensiling wet
swine manure with other feed materials appears to be feasible for producing high-
quality feed (Iniguez-Covarrubias et aI., 1994). During the ensiling process (lactic
acid fermentation), large reservoirs of fecal coliform bacteria, pathogenic Salmo-
nella, and other dysentery organisms are killed. Ensiled swine manure also is a good
source ofP and Mg for animals (Cooke & Fontenot, 1990).
Various treatment processes also can enhance the feed value of swine manure.
For example, treating the manure with a solution ofNaOH will break down some
cellulose and lignin, allowing microorganisms to convert more of this material into
nutritionally useful compounds (Flachowsky et aI., 1990).
The use offeed additives to enhance the health and growth of swine is quite
common in intensive swine production. However, as the additives appear in the ma-
nure, they may potentially alter the processing of swine manure due to their an-
tibacterial properties. For example, the addition of dimetridazole to swine feed en-
hances swine growth and prevents hemorrhagic enteritis (being active against
anaerobic bacteria). After ingestion it is rapidly eliminated from the pig, primarily
in the urine. However, Fougerat et al. (1987) reported that biogas production from
swine manure may be either enhanced or inhibited by the presence of dimetrida-
zole, depending on the concentration. Other antibiotics (such as avilamycin) do not
appear to have detrimental effects on anaerobic digestion of swine manure (Sutton
et aI., 1989), but little is known about the impact of many of these additives and
their fate when feeding by-products to other animals.
It appears that swine manure can be an important and nutritionally valuable
component in animal diets. Using swine manure as an animal feed offers a promis-
ing method to conserve nutrients and energy-rich resources, while reducing potential
pollution problems. Recycling this low-cost feed ingredient can possibly reduce an-
imal production expenses as well. However, this practice should only be initiated
after careful consideration of the presence of potentially harmful factors such as
detrimental microorganisms, residual additives, and the possible presence of rela-
tively high concentrations of trace metals. Similarly, the health of the animals and
humans consuming the animal products should be carefully considered.
BIOGAS PRODUCTION
During the anaerobic decomposition of swine manure, natural microbial

processes result in production of methane (biogas). There is considerable potential
for energy production from farm manures as a result of anaerobic digestion when
organic matter decomposition is managed for this purpose. On-farm digesters pro-
duce a mixture of gases [composed primarily of methane (> 60%), carbon dioxide,
water vapor, and other trace gases], which may be suitable for use in heating, light-
ing, and other energy-intensive applications. Anaerobic digestion also reduces the
BOD and chemical oxygen demand (COD) of the manure. During the digestion
process, the readily decomposable organic materials are microbially degraded and
the remaining solids are more homogeneous than the raw manure.
Swine manure is a relatively good substrate for use in biogas generation, com-
pared with other animal manure. Approximately 500 to 600 L gas/kg may be pro-
duced from swine manure solids. Fresh manure is much more biodegradable than
aged or dried manure because of the substantial loss of volatile solids from manures
with time. Yang et al. (1993) reported on the development of a small treatment plant
for swine wastewater that reduced volatile solids while producing methane. A va-
riety of systems have been designed to accommodate larger amounts of swine and
other animal manures (U .S. DOE, 1995).
There are significant problems with biogas production from swine manure
that have limited its widespread adoption as a beneficial-use process. For exam-
ple, there can be considerable capital costs associated with the initial construction
and subsequent operation of a biogas generator. It was estimated that a minimum
468 MIKKELSEN
swine herd size of between 3000 and 4000 was required before farm collection of
methane was economically justified (DOE, 1995). Additionally, after the raw swine
manure has been digested, the remaining solids must still be handled and disposed
of appropriately. The biogas production process requires considerable skill to op-
erate efficiently and is subject to inhibitory processes that may interfere with bio-
gas generation.
Methane generation is more rapid at mesophilic temperatures and some di-
gesters may need to be heated to > 35 DC and the contents regularly mixed for opti-
mal gas production. The water content of the manure used for biogas generation is
critical. Therefore, a solid separator may need to be used in order to keep the di-
gester feed-stock at a relatively consistent moisture content. Elevated concentra-
tions ofmetals (e.g., Cu) added to swine feed may inhibit anaerobic digestion. Since
high concentrations ofNH 3 present during the digestion process can inhibit biogas
production, some processing may be required to eliminate this constituent. Although
both BOD and COD are significantly reduced following the digestion process, fur-
ther treatment of the liquid is still required prior to discharge into surface water. A
good overview of the potentials and limitations of agricultural generation of bio-
gas is given by Ross and Walsh (1996).
Many of the biogas generators built during the 1970s and 1980s were of the
plug flow reactor design, optimally operated in the mesophilic range (20-45 DC).
More recently, attention has been placed on the use of covered anaerobic lagoons
for biogas recovery. These systems have the advantage of simplicity in design and
operation. However, these systems are most efficient in the psychrophilic temper-
ature range «20DC), making biogas production very susceptible to temperature fluc-
tuations (Safley & Westerman, 1989). The production ofbiogas from normally op-
erated anaerobic lagoon does not appear to be sufficiently consistent to be a reliable
source of energy (Safley & Westerman, 1988).
When considering production ofbiogas and the marketing of the residual solid
fraction, the current economic situation must be carefully evaluated and compared
with other treatment options before beginning such an operation. The fluctuations
of world energy prices can rapidly change the economic feasibility of this practice
(Durand et aI., 1987).
Biogas methane is potentially dangerous and highly explosive. Being heav-
ier than air, it will displace O 2 in confined spaces and can therefore pose a respira-
tory risk to humans and animals. The storage of more than a few days output is pro-
hibitively expensive, therefore the gas must be used as it is produced, perhaps to
power an electrical generator. A considerable commitment of time and resources
is required to successfully operate a biogas facility from an anaerobic digester.
Ahring et al. (1992) proposed the treatment of animal manures in combina-
tion with organic industrial wastes and household solid wastes to produce biogas
and organic fertilizers. They suggested that this multi feedstock approach may be
more feasible than focusing on the utilization of a single organic substrate, although
this increases transportation costs. To be successful, it is likely that a large-scale
biogas generation must have a constant supply of raw material, the methane must
be utilized as it is generated, the effluent must be utilized or further treated, and the
remaining solid fraction should be used as a value-added product.
Although energy production is one potentially beneficial result of controlled

anaerobic digestion, parasite and pathogenic bacterial counts also are reduced by
more than 90% through this process (Feacham et aI., 1983). Pain et al. (1990) re-
ported that anaerobic digestion of swine manure slurries reduced odor emission by
between 70 and 74% compared with the undigested manure. Reducing NH3 con-
centrations in an anaerobic digester has a dual function. Since the production ofbio-
gas is optimized as NH3 concentrations are kept low, the NH3 can be used to pro-
duce ammonium phosphate fertilizer solution by passing the NHrcontaining air
through phosphoric acid.
COMPOSTING
One option for treatment of swine manure is compost production. Compost-

ing swine solids involves thermophilic processing and decomposition by aerobic
microorganisms to produce a relatively stable organic material (Lau et aI., 1992).
Compo sting has been successfully conducted with varying levels oftechnology on
farms of all sizes, however the more sophisticated approaches can require consid-
erable effort and expertise to operate effectively. Swine farms with smaller num-
bers of animals may effectively use a simple compo sting system, such as a static
windrow. For large-scale operations or where high-quality compost is desired,
some mechanical composting system may be more appropriate (Haywood, 1997).
When swine manure is removed from the barns using water and handled as
a liquid, it is too wet and dilute to be directly composted. With a wet-manure han-
dling system, the dilute effluent/slurry from the barns can be processed through a
solid separator and the solid fraction used for composting. The solid fraction from
the mechanical separation is rich in fiber and moisture and may be well suited for
composting. However, separation of manure solids is not a common practice on most
farms, so the immediate potential for widespread composting of swine manure solids
is not great. Research has been conducted on composting "liquid" manures and this
technique has been successful in degrading some solids and controlling odors from
the swine manure (Woods, 1980).
Although there is considerable interest in composting, there are not many op-
erations that compost swine solids on a large scale. Solid swine manure alone (with-
out further processing or composting) has an offensive odor and physical proper-
ties are not conducive for direct horticultural uses. However, combining the swine
manure with a high-C bulking agent prior to composting will improve aeration and
the physical properties of the manure, resulting in excellent quality compost. Dur-
ing the composting process, temperatures generally exceed 55°C and many of the
odorous S-based gases (such as H 2S, methylmercaptan, and methyl sulfides) are
rapidly removed from the maturing compost (Fig. 16-3). It is important to main-
tain a well-aerated environment during composting, since these malodorous com-
pounds are primarily formed and emitted under anaerobic conditions. Pathogens
and parasites present in manure are generally killed or inactivated at elevated com-
posting temperatures. Another advantage of compo sting is the reduction in volume
that occurs during the process. Much ofthe C is respired as the microbes degrade
470 MIKKELSEN
the organic material, reducing the volume by up to 50% during the composting
process.
Kuroda et ai. (1996) studied the production of compost from swine feces com-
posted with cardboard fragments. They reported a 60% reduction in weight and 30%
loss of total N during the compo sting process. Volatile fatty acids, initially at high
concentrations, were rapidly reduced during the first few hours of composting. This
is significant since volatile fatty acids are frequently considered to be a major source
of offensive odors in fresh swine feces. However, during the compo sting process,
the emission ofNH 3 and volatile S compounds continued to be the major sources
of odor (Tanaka et aI., 1991).
The addition of mineral acids to swine manure for treatment can reduce
gaseous losses ofNH 3 ; however Derikx et ai. (1994) found that upon drying, acid-
ification also increases losses of volatile fatty acids. Therefore, steps taken to re-
duce one volatile substance (e.g., NH 3) may increase the volatility of another.
Since many volatile compounds are responsible for manure odor, the overall effect
of these management practices during the compo sting process is complex.
There are many reports of successfully compo sting swine manure solids
with various bulking agents. For example, Lo et ai. (1993) reported that a 5: 1 ratio
of swine manure solids and sawdust formed the substrate for excellent compost.
Gonzalez et ai. (1992) had good agronomic results from a compost initially com-
posed of 80% swine manure solids, 10% clay, and 10% other animal manures. Pic-
cinini et ai. (1995) produced a high-quality compost from a mixture of separated
swine solids, straw, and wood chips. They also reported an elevated concentration
of eu and Zn in the compost, originating from the solid fraction of the separated
swine manure. Georgacakis et ai. (1996) found that incorporating ground lignite
with the swine manure-based compost resulted in a superior final product than that
E
0..
0..
'-'
Z
• Hydrogen Sulfide
0 10 3 - • Methyl Mercaptan
f-
«
a: .... Dimethylsulfide
f-
Z
W 102 -
0
Z
0
0
(j) 10
«
(9
2 4 6 8 10 12
TIME (days)
Fig. 16-3. Changes in concentrations of volatile S compounds during the composting of swine manure
(adapted from Harada et aI., 1993).
not receiving lignite, due to improvements in physical properties and a reduction

in odors.
The high concentrations of Cu and Zn present in some swine manures are a
potential cause for concern in composting. Repeated use of composts that are en-
riched in trace metals can result in rapid build-up in soil (Mikkelsen, 2000). The
concentration of metals is not regulated in animal manure-based composts at this
time, but this issue will need to be addressed as this practice becomes more wide-
spread.
One innovative producer in Virginia replaced a traditional windrow-based
composting system for cattle manure with pig-based composting by allowing the
manure and bedding from a 50-cow herd in an open-sided shed to accumulate dur-
ing for 90 to 100 d during the winter (Shirley, 1994). Following the occasional ad-
dition of straw, wood chips and grain, the cattle are again turned out to pasture in
the spring. A small herd of pigs root for food in the accumulated organic material,
thereby turning and aerating the pile and producing a compost for subsequent on-
farm use.
VERMICOMPOSTING
It has long been known that earthworms are important in decomposition of

organic manures and residues. Although several earthworm species have been
evaluated for their potential in processing organic materials, the most studied
species include Eiseniafetida, Eudrilus eugeniae, Perionyx excavatus, and Den-
drobaena veneta. Swine manure can be an excellent medium for worms, however
the excess water should be separated from the solid manure fraction in slurry or ef-
fluent before use on worm beds. Additionally, since fresh swine manure may con-
tain high concentrations of salt and NH 3, a period of composting or leaching may
be required prior to application directly to worms (Chan & Griffiths, 1988). Swine
manure also may contain a relatively high concentration of trace metals that may
be injurious to earthworms (Edwards, 1988). After addition to worm beds, it is im-
portant that the swine manure not undergo the heating process normally associated
with composting, in order to avoid damaging the worms.
The vermicomposting of dewatered swine manure is currently being on a farm
that conducts the entire process within an enclosed greenhouse facility (Riggle,
1997). The finished product is odor-free and extremely consistent throughout the
year, since the composition of the manure does not change during the year and ex-
treme environmental fluctuations are eliminated by the use of the greenhouse
(Mikkelsen, 1999).
When the processing of the swine manure is complete, the resulting product
(vermicompost) is a peatlike material that has excellent physical properties for plant
growth (Dominguez et a!., 1997). The nutrient composition of the vermicompost
will depend on the swine manure initially used, but swine manure-derived vermi-
compost provides a range of essential plant nutrients.
Results from numerous greenhouse experiments show that plant growth in
vermicompost may equal or exceed plant growth in conventional peat-based growth
media (Handreck, 1986, Edwards, 1988). In addition to the desirable physical and
nutritional properties, there is indication that other plant growth-enhancing prop-
472 MIKKELSEN
erties may result from fertilization with vermicomposted organic materials. For ex-
ample, Tomati et al. (1988) observed a positive plant growth response that they at-
tributed to a hormonal effect in the vermicompost. They speculated that this resulted
from microorganisms present during the vermicomposting process, since it is
known that some microorganisms are capable of producing plant growth hor-
mones.
Following separation of the vermicompost from the worms, the use of worms
as animal feed has been suggested. Worms are rich in minerals, vitamins, niacin,
and provide an unusually good source of vitamin B 12 (Edwards, 1998). In small-
scale studies, earthworm protein has been successfully used for feeding fish, chick-
ens, and swine. However, the high value of earthworms generally precludes these
uses.
More information is clearly needed on the potential of worm-based process-
ing and the proper use of the resulting vermicompost. The optimization of the en-
tire process needs evaluation as well as examination of potential markets for the
finished material.
CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS
The liquid fraction of swine manure or the liquid remaining following solid
separation still contains a relatively high nutrient concentration, as well as high BOD
and COD. This effiuent requires further treatment or management prior to discharge
to surface water. One technique that has been investigated is use of constructed wet-
lands for the treatment of wastewater as it flows slowly through a series of ponds
or cells. Many species of aquatic plants have been investigated for use in wetland-
based treatment, but common reed (Phragmites australis Cav. Trin. Ex Steudel) has
been the focus of the most research.
This reed species has stiff aerial shoots with both horizontal rhizomes and nor-
mal roots. It has been effective in wastewater treatment since it is able to conduct
O 2 from the aerial portion ofthe plant through the stems and rhizomes into the rhi-
zosphere. The large population of microorganisms that are supported on the root
surface are effective at water treatment. This microbial activity can result in a sig-
nificant reduction in BOD, COD, and NH4 in the passing water.
PRODUCTION OF MICROBIAL PRODUCTS
Swine by-products can be used beneficially for production of nontraditional

"crops", such as bacteria grown in aerobic or oxidized treatment facilities. Bacte-
ria, used as a single-celled protein source, can be periodically harvested, processed,
and used as a food source for animals.
Several reports have been published detailing the potential for concurrent mi-
croalgae production and treatment of swine manure. For example, Noue and
Basseres (1989) found that in addition to small Chlorophyceae, the cyanobacteria
Phormidium bohneri was effective at removing over 90% ofthe organic N and in-
organic P from anaerobic swine effiuent. Similarly, Cafiizares et al. (1993, 1994)
reported that immobilized cells of Spirulina maxima were effective at removing over
80% ofthe NH4 and 90% of the total P from a diluted swine manure slurry.
Some blue-green algae (e.g., Spirulina platens is) have been used as a human
food source in Africa for thousands of years. Algae grown in swine effluent could
conceivably be used as sources of fats and oils, polysaccharides, and for animal pro-
tein (Moulton et a!., 1980). Regions with warm temperatures and sunny skies will
have the best success with algae production.
Filtered swine effluent has been successfully used in the production of green
and blue-green algae for aquaculture, where the algae was utilized as the primary
food source for cultured shrimp and fish. Behrends et a!. (1980) reported that
swine manure made an excellent fertilizer for fish production. Teichert-Codding-
ton et a!. (1990) found that excellent fish growth could be expected following ad-
dition of swine manure to ponds, but that careful management was required to sus-
tain high levels of fish production. Integrated swine and fish production has been
utilized quite successfully in China where agricultural land is limited and highly
populated.
STRUVITE PRODUCTION
During anaerobic treatment of swine wastewater, various ions (e.g., NH 4, Mg,

and P0 4) are released into solution. When these ions become supersaturated, mag-
nesium ammonium phosphate hexahydrate (MgNH 4P04e6H 20), commonly known
as struvite, precipitates and forms "scales" that will clog pipes and pumps, thereby
reducing their hydraulic capacity. Safley et a!. (1982) reported that struvite forma-
tion can cause a serious problem in swine manure treatment systems using recy-
cled flush water. The accumulation of struvite may become so extensive that it causes
a complete failure ofthe treatment system.
Struvite precipitation in anaerobic manure treatment facilities typically oc-
curs within the pipe network where pressure changes occur (e.g., at bends and in-
lets) and the inlet/outlets to settling areas. It has been hypothesized that a reduc-
tion in the partial pressure of CO 2 at these points may trigger struvite formation
(Loewenthal et a!., 1994). Considerable work has been done to understand the ther-
modynamics and the management practices responsible for struvite formation in
order to prevent its occurrence (e.g., Wrigley et a!., 1992; Buchanan et a!., 1994a).
Other work has been done to develop chemical treatment practices that inhibit stru-
vite formation (e.g., Buchanan et a!., I 994b ).
It is feasible that the chemical properties ofthe swine manure liquid and the
environmental conditions could be manipulated to promote struvite precipitation
and subsequent collection. A major advantage of this technique for removing both
Nand P from the wastewater is that a valuable slow-release fertilizer is formed. Al-
though this approach has been examined on a research scale (e.g., Wrigley et a!.,
1992; Webb & Ho, 1992; Liao et a!., 1995), there have been no commercial attempts
to produce struvite from anaerobic swine effluent.
Struvite is only slightly soluble in water (log K = 13.15) and has been previ-
ously used as a slow-release fertilizer in crop production. Its use as a fertilizer may
be particularly advantageous when soluble fertilizers are inefficient, low soluble
salts are required in the root zone, or when a long residual effect is required. For
474 MIKKELSEN
example, Bridger et al. (1962) reported that increasing the particle size of stmvite
extends the nutrient release rate. Improved growth of grass, fmit, and various high-
value crops was observed when fertilized with stmvite, compared with conventional
soluble fertilizers (Rothbaum & Rohde, 1976).
INTEGRATED ON-FARM MANAGEMENT
An award-winning swine operation in northeastern China is a good example

of integrated uses of swine manure on a farm. Rinse water, used to clean the floors
and remove the manure from the pigpens, is flushed into lagoons to fertilize water
hyacinth. These lagoons cover 3.3 ha and produce 2500 Mg ofhyacinthlyr. The hy-
acinth is used during the winter and spring as animal fodder. The water flows from
the hyacinth lagoons into pools containing algae and azolla at the surface, with fish
and crabs beneath. The azolla is periodically removed and used as a summer fod-
der source for farm animals. The water flows from this second pool into a third pool
containing fish, crabs, and freshwater mussels. From this third pool, the water and
remaining dissolved nutrients are used to irrigate and fertilize adjacent rice (Oryza
sativa L.) fields. When the water leaves the rice field, it is sufficiently clean to be
used again for rinsing the swine houses and begin the cycle again (Xinyan & Xi-
angchen, 1996).
A similar approach was evaluated by Noue et al. (1994) on a swine farm in
France. Swine manure was diluted and processed through a sequence of ponds, the
first of which was aerated and inoculated with Scenedesmus quadricauda and S.
falcatus (for treatment and algae production for feed). The effluent then passed to
a second pond that was inoculated with Daphnia magna, and then passed to a fish
pond containing carp (Cyprinus carpio). The fish pond effluent was then returned
to the algal ponds to dilute the swine manure. The ponds were all designed to pro-
duce biomass, which is harvested and used for various purposes. The operators of
this integrated facility reported that additional work was still required to optimize
the individual components of the complex treatment process. Additionally, cold win-
ter weather resulted in the loss of treatment capacity for nearly 80 d when the water
temperature was <5°C. Clearly, this type of integrated approach requires a high-
degree of management and skill to successfully maintain manure and wastewater
treatment year round.
MANURE BROKERAGE
Where a regional surplus of manure-derived nutrients occurs, one option is

to export the manure to farms outside the region for land application. When this is
necessary, it is advantageous to minimize the moisture content to reduce trans-
portation costs and to stabilize the nutrients. Increasing the nutrient content with
inorganic fertilizer sources and pelletizing the manure for easy handling may im-
prove the attractiveness for potential users.
Innovative systems of manure brokerage have been used to encourage trans-
portation of swine manure out from regions of excess nutrients to geographic areas
that have a greater need for this resource. These attempts have typically depended
on government subsidies to achieve economical stability and match manure gen-
erators with potential consumers, but economists estimate that this practice may be
profitable under certain circumstances (Govindasamy & Cochran, 1995).
CENTRALIZED "PROCESSING"
A number of centralized processing strategies have been proposed for trans-

forming swine manure into a dry, odorless solid that would have value for con-
sumers. This approach has the advantage of allowing more expensive processing
techniques to be utilized by pooling manure resources from a larger region, although
greater transportation costs may be incurred.
A major difficulty in centralized treatment and processing of swine manure
is the high water content (>90%), therefore treatment typically begins with sepa-
ration of the dry matter from the water. Extraction of the water usually requires an
input of energy. To reduce processing expenses and enhance the probability of over-
all success, energy costs and chemical inputs (such as acids or flocculents) must
be kept to a minimum. An additional difficulty to processing is that pig manure is
inherently a complex and variable material, containing at least 75 different recog-
nizable chemical compounds in the organic fraction, salts, acids, proteins, fats, and
minerals (Schurink, 1991).
In order to be successful, a centralized treatment process for swine manure
should ideally incorporate the following considerations: (i) provide for recovery of
products that can be reused, (ii) result in production of energy or require a mini-
mal input of energy in processing, (iii) require a minimum input of chemicals, (iv)
minimize the escape of potentially undesirable gases to the atmosphere, and (v) min-
imize environmental impacts during the treatment process.
A variety of innovative processes have been proposed for handling and treat-
ing swine manure (Table 16-5). For example, a processing plant using an evapo-
rative technique coupled to steam cleaners is under investigation in France (Vel,
1996). This plant is capable oftreating 380 Llh of swine slurry and produces a dry,
easily handled product. Many such processing techniques have been proposed but
only a few have advanced beyond the pilot plant stage. In general, the capital and
operating costs of a central treatment facility have generally exceeded the market
value of the products produced. The extent of potential markets for processed
swine derivatives and the financial constraints associated with these markets also
must be addressed early in the planning. Perhaps consideration of diminished en-
vironmental impacts that result from expanding into alternative treatment practices
(beyond land application) and further restrictive regulations will change the eco-
nomic constraints in the future.
Two centralized swine manure treatment systems have been utilized in HoI-
land (Rulkens & ten Have, 1994). The "Promest" system involves initial anaero-
bic digestion of the swine slurry, followed by centrifugation. The resulting solid frac-
tion is dried and pelletized, while the liquid fraction is further processed with
aerobic treatment. The finished solid material has been shown to be a very effec-
tive source of plant nutrients (van Erp & van Dijk, 1992). The "Memon" involves
initial acidification to reduce NH3 volatilization, followed by treatment with a
biodegradable carrier oil with a high boiling point (such as paraffin oil) to allow
dewatering of the manure. The swine solids are removed from the carrier oil and
476 MIKKELSEN
Table l6~5. Potential treatment processes for handling and treating of swine manure (adapted from
Rulkens & ten Have, 1994).
I. Concentration of colloidal and suspended particles

Filtration
Centrifugation
II. Removal, concentration or conversion of organic materials
Mechanical separation of suspended particles
Anaerobic digestion (with biogas production)
Aerobic treatment
Wet oxidation
III. Removal, conversion, or immobilization ofN compounds
Volatilization and trapping in acid
Nitrification
Denitrification
Acidification with acids
IV. Removal of P compounds
Filtration and separation of colloidal compounds
Precipitation of soluble compounds
V. Removal or concentration of minerals
Evaporation and concentration
Reverse osmosis
VI. Treatment of manure solids from the filtration or reverse osmosis process
Drying
Incineration for energy production
VII. Treatment of exhaust gases produced during drying process
Dust removal
Bioscrubbing
Biofiltration
Incineration
VIII. Other treatment steps
Algae biomass conversion
Production of amino acids
Freeze concentration to remove water
Catalytic incineration
pelletized prior to sale. The carrier oil is separated from the water and the organic
materials before being recycled again through the process.
The long-term success of such large-scale, centralized manure treatment fa-
cilities remains to be proven and substantial economic and technological hurdles
remain. This centralized approach to treatment must compete with other manure-
management options, such as transporting manure to other regions. The quantity
of manure that could be processed by a large treatment facility is not known, there-
fore the feasibility of spreading the costs over a large number of farms is uncertain.
Similarly, the potential income that could be derived from the sale of finished prod-
ucts is not clear. It is likely that centralized manure treatment plants will only be
utilized after all other feasible options have been exhausted.
REFERENCES
Ahring, B.K., 1. Angelidaki, and K. Johansen. 1992. Anaerobic treatment of manure together with in-
dustrial waste. Water Sci. Techno\. 25(7):311 ~318.
Andreadakis, A.D. 1992. Anaerobic digestion ofpiggery wastes. Water Sci. Techno\. 25:9~16.
Barker, J.C., and J.P. Zublena. 1996. Livestock manure nutrient assessment. p. 17~27. In M.B. Coelho,
and E.T. Kornegay (ed.) Phytase in animal nutrition and waste management. BASF, Mt. Olive,
NJ.
Barrington, S.F., and A.F. MacKenzie. 1989. The enrichment of swine manures through cement kiln
dust incorporation. BioI. Wastes 29: I-I O.
Behrends, L.L., J.J. Maddox, C.E. Madewell, and R.S. Pile. 1980. Comparison of two methods of using
liquid swine manure as an organic fertilizer in the production of filter-feeding fish. Aquaculture
20:147-153.
Berger, J.C.A., E.T. Kornegay, J.P. Fontenot, and K.E. Webb, Jr. 1981. Feeding swine waste. III. Di-
gestibility, nitrogen utilization and palatability of ensiled swine waste and com grain or or-
chardgrass hay fed to swine. J. Anim. Sci. 52:468-474.
Bilstad, T., M. Madland, E. Espedal, and P.H. Hanssen. 1992. Membrane separation of raw and anaer-
obically digested pig manure. Water Sci. Technol. 25( 10): 19-26.
Bobbitt, J.A., and R.P. Betts. 1992. The removal of bacteria from solutions by membrane filtration. J
Microbiol. Meth. 16:215-220.
Boiran, B., Y. Couton, and J.c. Germon. 1996. Nitrification and denitrification of liquid lagoon pig-
gery waste in a biofilm infiltration-percolation aerated system reactor. Biores. Technol. 55:63-77.
Bridger, G.L., M.L. Salutsky, and R. W. Starostka. 1962. Metal ammonium phosphates as fertilizers. J.
Agric. Food Chern. 10:181-188.
Buchanan, J .R., C.R. Mote, and R. B. Robinson. 1994a. Thermodynamics of struvite formation. Trans.
Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 37:617-621.
Buchanan, J.R., C.R. Mote, and R.B. Robinson. 1994b. Struvite control by chemical treatment. Trans.
Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 37:1301-1308.
Campbell, A.J., J.A. MacLeod, and C. Stewart. 1997. Nutrient characterization of stored liquid hog ma-
nure. Can. Agric. Eng. 39:43-48.
Caftizares, R.O., A.R. Bominguez, L. Rivas, M.C. Montes, L. Travieso, and F. Benitez. 1993. Free and
immobilized cultures of Spirulina maxima for swine waste treatment. Biotechnol. Lett.
15:321-326.
Caftizares, R.O., L. Rivas, C. Montes, A.R. Dominguez, L. Travieso, and F. Benitez. 1994. Aerated swine-
wastewater treatment with K-Carrageenan-immobilized Spirulina maxima. Biores. Technol.
47:89-91.
Council on Agricultural Science and Technology. 1995. Waste management and utilization in food pro-
duction and processing. CAST Rep. 124. CAST, Ames, lA.
Chan, P.L.S., and D.A. Griffiths. 1988. The vermicomposting of pre-treated pig manure. BioI. Wastes
24:57-69.
Clanton, C.J., D.A. Nicols, R.L. Moser, and D.R. Ames. 1991. Swine manure characterization as af-
fected by environmental temperature, dietary level intake, and dietary fat addition. Trans. Am.
Soc. Agric. Eng. 34:2164-2166.
Coelho, M.B., and E.T. Kornegay. 1996. Phytase in animal nutrition and waste management. BASF, Mt.
Olive, N1.
Cooke, J.A., and J.P. Fontenot. 1990. Utilization of phosphorus and certain other minerals from swine
waste and broiler litter. 1. Anim. Sci. 68:2852-2863.
Couture, P., D. Cluis, and C. Bastein. 1988. Phosphorus removal from swine manure supernatant. Water
Air Soil Pollut. 42:353-364.
Cromwell, G.L. 1990. Application of phosphorus availability data to practical diet formulation. p. 55-75.
In Proc. Carolina Swine Nutr. Conf., Raleigh, NC. 7-8 November. North Carolina State Univ.,
Raleigh, NC.
Davies, N.T., and R. Nightingale. 1975. The effects ofphytate on intestinal absorption and secretion of
zinc and whole-body retention of zinc, copper, iron, and manganese in rats. Br. J. Nutr.
34:243-246.
Derbyshire, J.B., H.D. Monteith, and E.E.Shannon. 1986. Virological studies on an anaerobic diges-
tion system for liquid pig manure. Agric. Wastes 18:309-312.
Derikx, P.J.L., H.C. Willers, and P.J.w. ten Have. 1994. Effect of pH on the behaviour of volatile com-
pounds in organic manures during dry-matter determination. Biores. Technol. 49:41-45.
Dominguez, J., C.A. Edwards, and S. Subler. 1997. A comparison ofvermicomposting and compost-
ing. Biocycle 38(August):57-59.
Donham, KJ., J.J. Rubino, T.D. Thedell, and J. Kammermeyer. 1977. Potential health hazards to agri-
cultural workers in swine confinement buildings. J. Occupat. Med. 19:383-387.
Donham, KJ., 1. Yeggy, and R.R. Dague. 1988. Production rates of toxic gases from liquid swine ma-
nure: Health implications for workers and animals in swine confinement buildings. BioI. Waste
24:161-\73.
Doyle, Y., and 1. de la Nolie. 1987. Aerobic treatment of swine manure: Physico-chemical aspects. BioI.
Wastes 22: 187-208.
Durand, J.H., J.R. Fischer, E.L. Iannotti, J.B. Miles. 1987. Simulation and optimization of net energy
production in a swine waste digestion system. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 30:761-767.
478 MIKKELSEN
Edney, N.A., and M. Rizvi. 1996. Phytotoxicity offatty acids present in dairy and hog manure. J. En-
viron. Sci. Health (B) 31 :269-28l.
Edwards, C.A. 1988. Breakdown of animal, vegetable, and industrial organic wastes by earthworms.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 24:21-31.
Edwards, C.A. 1998. The use of earthworms in the breakdown and management of organic wastes. p.
327-354. In e.A. Edwards (ed.) Earthworm ecology. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL.
Ensminger, M.E., and R.O. Parker. 1984. Swine science. Interstate Pub!., Danville, IL.
Evans, A. 1995. Designer fees for pollution contro!. Pigs-Mis set. I I (August): 10-11.
Farnworth, E.R, H. W. Modler, and D.A. Mackie. 1995. Adding Jerusalem artichoke to weanling pig diets
and the effect on manure composition and characteristics. Anim. Feed Sci. Techno!' 55: 153-160.
Feachem, R., OJ. Bradley, H. Garelick, and D.O. Mora. 1983. Sanitation and disease: Health aspects
of excreta and waste water management. 1. Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.
Fernandes, L., E. McKyes, M. Warith, and S. Barrington. 1991. Treatment of liquid swine manure in
the sequencing batch reactor under aerobic and anoxic conditions. Can. Agric. Eng. 33:373-379.
Flachowsky, G., P. Baldeweg, K. Tiroke, H. Konig, and A. Schneider. 1990. Feed value and feeding of
wastelage made from distillers grain solubles, pig slurry solids and ground straw treated with
urea and NaOH. Bio!. Wastes 34:271-280.
Fougerat, A., F. Jacob, and 1. Perrier. 1987. Effects of dimetridazole on methanization of swine manure:
The importance of propionic acid concentration. Bio!. Wastes 22:251-260.
Georgacakis, D., A. Tsavdaris, J. Bakouli, and S. Symeonidis. 1996. Compo sting solid swine manure
and lignite mixtures with selected plant residues. Biores. Techno!' 56: 195-200.
Gonzalez, 1.L., I.e. Benitez, M.1. Perez, and M. Medina. 1992. Pig-slurry composts as wheat fertiliz-
ers. Biores. Techno!. 40:125-130.
Govindasamy, R., and MJ. Cochran. 1995. The feasibility of poultry litter transportation from envi-
ronmentally sensitive areas to delta row crop production. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 24: 101-11 O.
Handreck, K.A. 1986. Vermicomposting as components of potting media. Biocycle 27(October): 58-62.
Harada, Y., K. Haga, T. Osada and M. Koshino. 1993. Quality of compost produced from animal wastes.
Jpn. Agric. Res. Quart. 26:238-246.
Hayenga, M.L. 1994. Pork slaughter industry: New plants, new players. National Hog Farmer. 15 May,
p.84-86.
Haywood, F. 1997. Handling liquids and solids on hog farms. Biocycle. 38(March):55-57.
Hill, D.T., and E. W. Tollner. 1980. Chemical and physical properties of flushed swine waste after screen-
ing. ASAE Summer Meet. Pap. 80/4056. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.
Hoag, D.L., and F.M. Roka. 1995. Environmental policy and swine manure management: Waste not or
want not? Am. J Altern. Agric. 10: 163-166.
Honeyman, M.S. 1993. Environmentally-friendly swine feed formulation to reduce nitrogen and phos-
phorus excretion. Am. 1. Altern. Agric. 8:128-132.
Honeyman, M.S. 1996. Sustainability issues of U.S. swine production. J. Anim. Sci. 74:1410-1417.
Iniguez-Covarrubias, G., A. Robles-Cabrera, and M. De J. Franco-Gomez. 1994. Continuous solid-sub-
strate fermentation of swine waste recovered solids for pig feed. Biores. Techno!. 50: 139-147.
Ishaque, M., 1.G. Bisaillon, R. Beaudet, and M. Sylvestre. 1985. Degradation of phenolic compounds
by microorganisms indigenous to swine waste. Agric. Wastes 13:229-235.
Kliebenstein, J.B., and J.D. Lawrence. 1995. Contracting and vertical coordination in the United States
Pork Industry. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 77:1213-1218.
Kornegay, ET, M.R. Holland, K.E. Webb Jr, K.P. Bovard, and J.D. Hedges. 1977. Nutrient characteri-
zation of swine fecal waste and utilization of these nutrients by swine. 1. Anim. Sci. 44:608-619.
Kuroda, K., T. Osada, M. Yonaga, A. Kanematu, T. Nitta, S. Mouri, and T. Kojima. 1996. Emissions of
malodorous compounds and greenhouse gases from composting swine feces. Biores. Techno!.
56:265-271.
Lau, A.K., K.Y. Lo, P.H. Liao & J.C. Yu. 1992. Aeration experiments for swine waste composting. Biores.
Tech. 41: 145-152.
Lo, K.Y., A.K. Lau, and P.H. Liao. 1993. Composting of separated solid swine wastes. 1. Agric. Eng.
Res. London 54:307-317.
Lawrence, J.D. 1992. The U.S. pork industry in transition. Staff Pap. no. 240. Dep. Econ., Iowa State
Univ., Ames.
Lawrence, J.D., Y. J. Rhodes, G.A. Grimes, and M.L. Hayenga. 1997. Vertical coordination in the U.S.
pork industry: status, motivations, and expectations. Agribusiness 13 :21-31.
Lenis, N.P. 1989. Lower nitrogen excretion in pig husbandry by feeding: Current and future possibili-
ties. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 37:61-70.
Liao, C.M., T Maekawa, H.C. Chiang, and C.F. Wu. 1993. Removal of nitrogen and phosphorus from
swine wastewater by intennittent aeration processes. J. Environ. Sci. Health (B) 28:335-374.
Liao, C.M., T Maekawa, and X. Feng. 1995. Nitrogen and phosphorus removal for swine wastewater
by ammonium crystallization and intermittent aeration process. 1. Environ. Sci. Health (B)
30:733-758.
Loewenthal, R.E., U.R.C. Kornmuller, and E.P. van Heerden. 1994. Modeling struvite precipitation in
anaerobic treatment systems. Water Sci. Techno!. 30(12):107-116.
Marty, B. 1986. Microbiology of anaerobic digestion. p. 72-87. In A. Kouzeli-Katsiri and PJ. Newman
(ed.) Anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge and organic agricultural wastes. Elsevier App!. Sci.
Pub!., London.
McBride, WD. 1995. U.S. hog production costs and returns. 1992. An economic handbook. USDA Econ.
Res. Servo Rep. 724. U.S. Gov. Washington, DC.
McCaskey, TA., and YD. Wang. 1985. Evaluation of the lactic acid fennentation process for elimina-
tion of mycobacteria from wastelage. 1. Dairy Sci. 68:1401-1404.
McGlone, JJ. 1996. Outdoor production and sow productivity. Pigs-Missel. 12(3):20-22.
Midwest Plan Service. 1985. Livestock waste facilities handbook. Iowa State Univ., Ames.
Mikkelsen, R.L. 1995. Swine waste disposal dilemma: A case study. J. Natural Res. Life Sci. Educ.
24: 169-172.
Mikkelsen, R.L. 1996. Best management practices for plant nutrients. p. 29-39. In M.B. Coelho and
E.T. Kornegay (ed.) Phytase in animal nutrition and waste management. BASF, Mt. Olive, NJ.
Mikkelsen, R.L. 1997. Agricultural and environmental issues in the management of swine waste. p.
llO-119.In lE. Rechcigl and H.C. MacKinnon (ed.) Agricultural uses of by-products and wastes.
Am. Chem. Soc. Symp. Ser. 668. ACS, Washington, DC.
Mikkelsen, R.L. 1999. Vermicomposting for treatment of swine waste. p. 60-64. In G.B. Havenstein
(ed.) Proc. Anim. Waste Manage. Symp., Cary, NC. 27-28 January. North Carolina State Univ.,
Raleigh.
Mikkelsen, R.L. 2000. Nutrient management for organic fanning: A case study. J. Natural Res. Life Sci.
Educ. (In press.)
Mikkelsen, R.L., and 1.w. Gilliam. 1995. Animal waste management and edge offield losses. p. 57-68.
In K. Steele (ed.) Animal waste and the land-water interface. CRC-Lewis Press, Boca Raton,
FL.
Moulton, P.M., G.R. Cyewski, and D.B. Anderson. 1980. A model of integrated hog and fish farming
systems. p. 493-502. In C. Po (ed.) Animal waste treatment and utilization. Proc. Int. Symp. on
Biogas, Microalgae, and livestock. Counc. Agric. Plan. Develop., PRC, Beijing.
de la NoUe, 1., and A. Basseres. 1989. Biotreatment of anaerobically digested swine manure with mi-
croalgae. Bio!. Wastes 29: 17-31.
de la NoUe, J., J. Sevrin-Reyssac, C. Mariojouls, J. Marcel, and S. Sylvestre. 1994. Biotreatment of swine
manure by intensive lagooning during winter. Biores. Techno!. 50:213-219.
Pain, B.F., TH. Misselbrrok, and C.R. Clarkson. 1990. Odour and ammonia emissions following
spreading of anaerobically digested pig slurry on grasslands. Bio!. Wastes. 34:259-276.
Payne, R.W. 1986. Characteristics offeces from institutional and commercial piggeries. Agric. Wastes
16:1-11.
Piccinini, S, L. Rossi, G. Bonazzi, and G. Da11'Orso. 1996. The Emilia-Romagna experiment in animal
manure composting. p.1275-1280. In M.P. Bertoldi et a!. (eds.) The science of compo sting. Part
2. Blackie Acad. & Prof, Glasgow, UK
Polson, D.O., and M.A. Hudson. 1990. The comparative influence of economies of scale on profitability
in six U.S. pig farms. Compend. Cont. Educ. Practic. Veterin. 21:1509-1519.
Raboy, v., and P. Gerbasi. 1996. Genetics of myo-inositol phosphate synthesis and accumulation. Sub-
cel!. Bio!. 26:257-285.
Ravindran, V. 1996. Occurrence of phytic acid in plant feed ingredients. p. 85-92. In M.B. Coelho and
E.T. Kornegay (ed.) Phytase in animal nutrition and waste management. BASF, Mt. Olive, NJ.
Riggle, 0.1997. Vennicomposting in the Carolinas. Biocycle 38(January):71-72.
Roka, F. 1993. An economic analysis of joint production relationships between pork and swine manure.
Ph.D. diss. Dep. Agric. Resour. Econ., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh.
Ross, C.C., and J.L. Walsh. 1996. Handbook ofbiogas utilization. DOE/Tennessee Valley Auth., Mus-
cle Shoals, AL.
Rothbaum, H.P., and A.G. Rohde. 1976. Long-tenn leaching of nutrients from magnesium ammonium
phosphate at various temperatures. N.Z. J. Exp. Agric. 4:405-413.
Rulkens, WH., and PJ.W ten Have. 1994. Central processing of pig manure in the Netherlands. Water
Sci. Techno!. 30(7): 157-165.
480 MIKKELSEN
Safley, L.M., Jr., lC. Barker, W.P. Robarge, and P. W. Westerman. 1982. Salt deposition in flush recy-
cle systems. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. Pap. 82-4533. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.
Safley, L.M., Jr., and P.w. Westerman. 1988. Biogas production from anaerobic lagoons. BioI. Wastes
23:181-193.
Safley, L.M., Jr., and P.w. Westerman. 1989. Anaerobic biogas recovery systems. BioI. Wastes.
27:43-62.
Sainsbury, D. 1983. Animal health. Health, disease and welfare offarm livestock. Collins, London.
Schnitkey, G.D., and Mol. Miranda. 1993. The impact of pollution controls on livestock-crop produc-
ers. 1 Agric. Resour. Econ. 18:25-36.
Schurink, H.F. 1991. A booming future for manure plants. Pigs-Misset. 7 (March!April):31, 33.
Shirley, C. 1994. Pig-powered composting. New Farm 16(September/October):53-55, 60.
Siever, D.M., M. W. Jenner, and M. Hanna. 1994. Treatment of dilute manure wastewaters by chemical
coagulation. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 37:597-601.
Smith, A.T. 1994. Pig housing. p. 273-304. In C.M. Wathes and D.R. Charles (ed.) Livestock housing.
CAB lnt., Oxon, UK.
Spencer, J.D., G.L. Allee, A. Leytem, R.L. Mikkelsen, T.E. Sauber, D.S. Ertl, and V. Raboy. 1998. Phos-
phorus availability and nutritional value of a genetically modified low phytate com for pigs. p.
48-53. In Proc. Anim. Waste Manage. Symp., Ames, IA Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA.
Stonehouse, D.P., and A.V.S. Narayanan. 1984. The contribution oflivestock manure to profitability
and to self-sufficiency in plant nutrients on mixed farms. Can. 1 Agric. Econ. 32:210-210.
Sutton, A.L., J.R. Malayer, M.A. Diekman, D.T. Kelly, D.D. Jones, and G.G. Long. 1987. Effects of
manure management and building environments on swine health and productivity. Am. Soc.
Agric. Eng. 30:1764-1771.
Sutton, A.L., lC. Nye, lA. Patterson, D.T. Kelly & Eol. Furumoto-Elkin. 1989. Effects ofavilamycin
in swine and poultry wastes on methane production in anaerobic digesters. BioI. Wastes
30:35-45.
Tanaka, H., K. Kuroda, T. Osada, M. Yonaga, M. Suzuki, and M. lnaba. 1991. Aerial VFA in livestock
houses and animal waste treatment facilities. Anim. Sci. Technol. 62:955-962.
Teichert-Coddington, D.R., L.L. Behrends, and R.O.Smitherman. 1990. Effects of manuring regime and
stocking rate on primary production and yield oftilapia using liquid swine manure. Aquacul-
ture 88:61-68.
ten Have, P.J.W., H.C. Willers, and P.J.L. Derikx. 1994. Nitrification and denitrification in an activated-
sludge system for supernatant from settled sow manure with molasses as an extra carbon source.
Biores. Technol. 47:135-141.
Tomati, U., A. Grappelli, and E. Galli. 1988. The hormone-like effect of earthworm casts on plant growth.
BioI. Fert. Soil. 5:288-294.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1994. Census of agriculture. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Energy. 1995. Methane recovery from animal manures: A current opportunities case-
book. DOEIEE-0062. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Process design manual fornitrogen control. Office Tech-
nol. Transfer, Washington, DC.
van Erp, Pol., and T.A. van Dijk. 1992. Fertilizer value of pig slurries processed by the Promest proce-
dure. Fert. Res. 32:61-70.
Vanotti, M.B., and P.G. Hunt. 1999. Solids and nutrient removal from flushed swine manure using poly-
acrylamides. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 42:1833-1840.
Vel, L. 1996. Sirven: An encouraging step. Pigs-Misset. 12(7):30-31.
Webb, K.M., and G.E. Ho. 1992. Struvite (MgNH4P04.6H20) solubility and its application to piggery
effluent problem. Water Sci. Technol. 26:2229-2232.
West, G.P. 1976. Black's veterinary dictionary. 12th ed. Adam & Charles Black, London
Wilhelm, R.G., D.C. Martens, D.L. Hallock, E.R. Collins, Jr., and E.T. Kornegay. 1980. Characteriza-
tion and agricultural utilization of swine waste lagoon effluents: Effects on growth of maize. Water
Air Soil Pollut. 14:443-450.
Woods, L. 1980. Liquid composting slurry. Pig-farming. Farming Press. November, p. 67, 72-73.
Wrigley, Tol., K.M. Webb, and H. Venkitachalm. 1992. A laboratory study of struvite precipitation after
anaerobic digestion ofpiggery wastes. Biores. Technol. 41 :117-121.
Xinyan, L., and D. Xiangchen. 1996. Pig farm leads the way: No smell, no flies. Pigs-Misset 12(2):32-33.
Yang, P.Y., H. Chen, N. Kongsricharoern, and C. Polprasert, 1993. A swine waste package treatment
plant for tropics. Water Sci. Technol. 28 (2) 210-218.
Zhu, J., D.S. Bundy, X. Li, and N. Rashid. 1997. A procedure and its application in evaluating pit ad-
ditives for odor control. Can. Agric. Eng. 39:207-214.

Beneficial Use of Swine By-Products: Opportunities For The Future

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beneficial Use of Swine By-Products: Opportunities For The Future

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Published 2000

Beneficial Use of Swine By-Products:

ROBERT L. MIKKELSEN, North Carolina State University,

timized and housing conditions maintained appropriately to minimize animal stress.

1974 1978 1982

1987 1992 1997

~ I::. . ··t} ···.··· 1

1974 1978 1982

1987 1992 1997

to slaughter weight (100-120 kg). On a farrow-to-finish farm, breeding and feed-

SWINE MANURE PRODUCTION

Swine were once commonly raised in outdoor pasture situations. Although

MANURE AND BY-PRODUCT TREATMENT

Much of the economic analysis of by-product treatment and utilization has

Aerobic Land Spread in g

.----:-A-n-a-e-ro""'!'b""'!'i-c-,--+ Biogas Generation

(biogas) production, evaporation, NH3 production, solid separation, hydrolysis, hy-

MANURE HANDLING SYSTEMS

Manure treatment ponds can be maintained in an aerobic state by regularly

Multi-Stage Treatment Ponds

A multistage system or series oflagoons can be used to combine some of the

Other Treatment Processes

Large particles Medium particles Small particles & dissolved

Screened Solid Separators

A number of screen-type separators are available with various designs to re-

INDOOR MANURE STORAGE

DISPOSAL OF TREATED LIQUID

USING MANURE AS A NUTRIENT SOURCE

Iowa North Carolina

Primary receiver crop Corn Bermuda grass

One major limitation to improved utilization of swine manure is the objec-

It is possible to change the nutrient characteristics of swine manure by mod-

1996). As much as 60 to 70% ofthe total P in grains is present as indigestible phytic

SWINE BY-PRODUCT UTILIZATION

Future developments in swine by-product processing include better utiliza-

MANURE AS A FEED SUPPLEMENT

As more swine are raised in confinement, there will be more opportunities

During the anaerobic decomposition of swine manure, natural microbial

Although energy production is one potentially beneficial result of controlled

One option for treatment of swine manure is compost production. Compost-

not receiving lignite, due to improvements in physical properties and a reduction

It has long been known that earthworms are important in decomposition of

PRODUCTION OF MICROBIAL PRODUCTS

Swine by-products can be used beneficially for production of nontraditional

During anaerobic treatment of swine wastewater, various ions (e.g., NH 4, Mg,

INTEGRATED ON-FARM MANAGEMENT

An award-winning swine operation in northeastern China is a good example

Where a regional surplus of manure-derived nutrients occurs, one option is

A number of centralized processing strategies have been proposed for trans-

I. Concentration of colloidal and suspended particles

You might also like