Animal Bioscience

Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies (아세아태평양축산학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of aerobically treated manure on odorous material emissions from a swine finishing barn equipped with a continuous pit recirculation system

  • Choi, Yongjun (Department of Animal Science and Technology, Konkuk University) ;
  • Ha, Duck-Min (Department of Animal Resources Technology, Gyeongnam National University of Science and Technology) ;
  • Lee, Sangrak (Department of Animal Science and Technology, Konkuk University) ;
  • Kim, Doo-Hwan (Department of Animal Resources Technology, Gyeongnam National University of Science and Technology)
  • Received : 2021.03.22
  • Accepted : 2021.05.27
  • Published : 2022.02.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: This study was conducted to determine reduction of various odorous materials from a swine farm equipped with a continuous pit recirculation system (CPRS) with aerobically treated liquid manure. Methods: The CPRS is used in swine farms in South Korea, primarily to improve air quality in pig houses. In this study, CPRS consists of a manure aerobic treatment system and a fit recirculation system; the solid fraction is separated and composted, whereas the aerobically treated liquid fraction (290.0%±21.0% per day of total stored swine slurry) is continuously returned to the pit. Four confinement pig barns in three piggery farms were used; two were equipped with CPRS and the other two operated a slurry pit under the slatted floor. Results: All chemical contents of slurry pit manure in the control were greater than those of slurry pit manure in the CRPS treatment (p<0.05). Electrical conductivity and pH contents did not differ among treatments. The biological oxygen demand of the slurry pit treatment was greater than that of the other treatments (p<0.05). Total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and ammonia nitrogen contents of the slurry pit treatment were greater than those of other treatments (p<0.05). Odor intensity of the CPRS treatment was lower than that of the control at indoor, exhaust, and outside sampling points (p<0.05). The temperature and carbon dioxide of the CPRS treatment in the pig barn was significantly lower than those of control (p<0.05). All measured odorous material contents of the CPRS group were significantly lower than those of the control group (p<0.05). Conclusion: The CPRS application in pig farms is considered a good option as it continuously reduces the organic load of animal manure and lowers the average odorant concentration below the threshold of detecting odorous materials.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the 2018 Post-Doc Department of Animal Resources Technology, Gyeongnam National University of Science and Technology and Konkuk University Researcher Fund in 2019.

References

  1. Urabain B, Gustin P, Prouvost JF, Ansay M. Quantitative assessment of aerial ammonia toxicity to the nasal mucosa by use of the nasal lavage method in pigs. Am J Vet Res 1994;55:1335-40.
  2. Zhu J. A review of microbiology in swine manure odor control. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2000;78:93-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00116-4
  3. Murphy DJ, Manbeck HB. Confined space manure storage and facilities safety assessment. J Agric Saf Health 2014;20:199-210. https://doi.org/10.13031/jash.20.10377
  4. Arogo J, Westerman PW, Heber AJ. A review of ammonia emissions from confined swine feeding operations. Trans ASAE 2003;46:805-17. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.13597
  5. Hristov AN. Technical note: Contribution of ammonia emitted from livestock to atmospheric fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in the United States. J Dairy Sci 2011;94:3130-6. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-3681
  6. Parker DB, Gilley J, Woodbury B, et al. Odorous VOC emission following land application of swine manure slurry. Atmos Environ 2013;66:91-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.01.001
  7. Wi J, Lee S, Kim E, Lee M, Koziel JA, Ahn H. Effects of treated manure conditions on ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions from a swine finishing barn equipped with semi-continuous pit recharge system in summer. Atmosphere 2020;11:713. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11070713
  8. Kai P, Kaspers B, Van Kempen T. Modeling sources of gaseous emissions in a pig house with recharge pit. Trans ASABE 2006;49:1479-85. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.22040
  9. Committe on National Institute of Environmental Research, Ministry of Environment. Standard Method for Odor Estimation and Analysis in Korea. Sejong, Korea: National Institute of Environmental Research Press; 2007.
  10. Poletaev MI, Andreyeva NA. Colorimetric method of determination of ammonia in air with phenol and sodium hypochlorite. Frederick MD, USA: Fort Detrick; 1968.
  11. Kim K-H. Performance characterization of the GC/PFPD for H2S, CH3SH, DMS, and DMDS in air. Atmos Environ 2005;39:2235-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.12.039
  12. Iqbal MA, Szulejko JE, Kim KH. Determination of methylamine, dimethylamine, and trimethylamine in air by high-performance liquid chromatography with derivatization using 9-fluorenylmethylchloroformate. Anal Methods 2014; 6:5697-707. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4AY00740A
  13. Kim HJ, Yu MS, Yang SB. Rapid and simultaneous determination of volatile fatty acids and indoles in pig slurry and dog excrement by solid-phase micro-extraction method with gas chromatography. J Environ Sci Int 2014;23:1693-701. https://doi.org/10.5322/JESI.2014.23.10.1693
  14. APHA. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. Washington DC, USA: American Public Health Association press; 1995.
  15. Bremner JM. Determination of nitrogen in soil by the Kjeldahl method. J Agric Sci 1960;55:11-33. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600021572
  16. Chaney AL, Marbach EP. Modified reagents for determination of urea and ammonia. Clin Chem 1962;8:130-2. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/8.2.130
  17. Kowalski Z, Makara A, Fijorek K. Changes in the properties of pig manure slurry. Acta Biochim Pol 2013;60:845-50. https://doi.org/10.18388/abp.2013_2070
  18. ASAE A. Manure production and characteristics. ASABE Stand D384.2. St Joseph MI, USA: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers; 2005.
  19. Layden NM, Mavinic DS, Kelly HG, Moles R, Bartlett J. Autothermal thermophilic aerobic digestion (ATAD) - Part I: Review of origins, design, and process operation. J Environ Eng Sci 2007;6:665-78. https://doi.org/10.1139/S07-015
  20. Tay JH, Pan S, He Y, Tay STL. Effect of organic loading rate on aerobic granulation. I: Reactor performance. J Environ Eng 2004;130:1094-101. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2004)130:10(1094)
  21. Wi J, Lee S, Kim E, Lee M, Koziel JA, Ahn H. Evaluation of semi-continuous pit manure recharge system performance on mitigation of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions from a swine finishing barn. Atmosphere 2019;10:170. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10040170
  22. Ahn KH, Song KG, Choa E, et al. Enhanced biological phosphorus and nitrogen removal using a sequencing anoxic/anaerobic membrane bioreactor (SAM) process. Desalination 2003;157:345-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(03)00415-6
  23. Tian G, Xi J, Yeung M, Ren G. Characteristics and mechanisms of H2S production in anaerobic digestion of food waste. Sci Total Environ 2020;724:137977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137977
  24. Diaz I, Perez SI, Lopes AC. Hydrogen sulphide removal in the anaerobic digestion of sludge by micro-aerobic processes: pilot plant experience. Water Sci Technol 2009;60:3045-50. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2009.738