Ammonia emissions from organic housing systems with fattening pigs

Ivanova, S.G.; Aarnink, A.J.A.; Verstegen, M.W.A.

doi:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2007.11.006

Cited by 24 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is because urine as main source of NH 3 can be drained off quickly via openings of slatted floor into the relatively cool underground storage with low airflow or can be absorbed by deep straw (Kavolelis, 2006). Significant relationships between NH 3 emissions and various climatic factors, such as outside temperature and wind speed, have been frequently reported for naturally ventilated dairy housings and pig buildings (Ivanova-Peneva et al, 2008;Pereira et al, 2010a;Schrade et al, 2012;Wu et al, 2012;Van Ransbeeck et al, 2013;Saha et al, 2014). The effectiveness of housing structure and management such as use of bedding on NH 3 mitigation may vary depending on environmental conditions.…”

Section: Housing Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…infrequently extra straw addition vs. no extra addition Groenestein & Van Faassen, 1996;Kavolelis, 2006;Gilhespy et al, 2009;Amon et al, 2007;Philippe et al, 2007aPhilippe et al, ,b, 2011Philippe et al, , 2013Ivanova-Peneva et al, 2008;Cabaraux et al, 2009;Dourmad et al, 2009;N 2 O, CH 4 Slatted floor vs. deep litter litter removal frequently vs. infrequently Groenestein & Van Faassen, 1996;Amon et al, 2007;Philippe et al, 2007aPhilippe et al, ,b, 2011Cabaraux et al, 2009;Dourmad et al, 2009;Acidification External storage NH 3 Acidified vs. not acidified Kai et al, 2008;Petersen et al, 2012Petersen et al, , 2014Dai & Blanes-Vidal, 2013;Wang et al, 2014;CH 4 Acidified vs. not acidified Petersen et al, 2012Petersen et al, , 2014Wang et al, 2014;Slurry storage External storage NH 3 Crusting vs. no-crust straw cover vs. no-cover wooden lid vs. no-cover wooden lid vs. crusting granules cover vs. no-cover artificial film cover vs. no-cover peat/kitchen oil cover vs. no-cover Sommer, 1997;H€ ornig et al, 1999;Portejoie et al, 2003;Misselbrook et al, 2005b;Balsari et al, 2006;Berg et al, 2006;Clemens et al, 2006;Amon et al, 2007;Smith et al, 2007;VanderZaag et al, 2009;…”

Section: Literature Search and Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mitigation of ammonia, nitrous oxide and methane emissions from manure management chains: a meta‐analysis and integrated assessment

Hou

Velthof

Oenema

2014

Global Change Biology

231

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Livestock manure contributes considerably to global emissions of ammonia (NH3 ) and greenhouse gases (GHG), especially methane (CH4 ) and nitrous oxide (N2 O). Various measures have been developed to mitigate these emissions, but most of these focus on one specific gas and/or emission source. Here, we present a meta-analysis and integrated assessment of the effects of mitigation measures on NH3 , CH4 and (direct and indirect) N2 O emissions from the whole manure management chain. We analysed the effects of mitigation technologies on NH3 , CH4 and N2 O emissions from individual sources statistically using results of 126 published studies. Whole-chain effects on NH3 and GHG emissions were assessed through scenario analysis. Significant NH3 reduction efficiencies were observed for (i) housing via lowering the dietary crude protein (CP) content (24-65%, compared to the reference situation), for (ii) external slurry storages via acidification (83%) and covers of straw (78%) or artificial films (98%), for (iii) solid manure storages via compaction and covering (61%, compared to composting), and for (iv) manure application through band spreading (55%, compared to surface application), incorporation (70%) and injection (80%). Acidification decreased CH4 emissions from stored slurry by 87%. Significant increases in N2 O emissions were found for straw-covered slurry storages (by two orders of magnitude) and manure injection (by 26-199%). These side-effects of straw covers and slurry injection on N2 O emission were relatively small when considering the total GHG emissions from the manure chain. Lowering the CP content of feed and acidifying slurry are strategies that consistently reduce NH3 and GHG emissions in the whole chain. Other strategies may reduce emissions of a specific gas or emissions source, by which there is a risk of unwanted trade-offs in the manure management chain. Proper farm-scale combinations of mitigation measures are important to minimize impacts of livestock production on global emissions of NH3 and GHG.

show abstract

Section: Housing Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Search and Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mitigation of ammonia, nitrous oxide and methane emissions from manure management chains: a meta‐analysis and integrated assessment

Hou

Velthof

Oenema

2014

Global Change Biology

231

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Increased values of ammonia emission at the end of the fattening period were observed in previous studies when analyzing excretory behaviour. Urine puddles are an important source of ammonia emission caused by urea degradation by the enzyme urease (Ivanova-Peneva et al, 2008). Therefore, main source of ammonia emissions are urine pools on solid concrete floors (Aarnink et al, 1997;Groenestein et al, 2007).…”

Section: Ammonia Emissionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diurnal Variation of Ammonia Emission in Pig Fattening Facilitties

Ocepek¹,

Berk²,

Rakun³

et al. 2012

Daaam International Scientific Book 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The objective of the present study was to determine diurnal variation of ammonia emission in pig fattening facilities. Measurements Higher differences in ammonia emission per pig, during day and night time were observed in first part (11-22 weeks) of fattening period (25 %). In the last part (22-26 weeks) of fattening period, diurnal variation of ammonia emission decreased to 17 % and was lowest in last week's (5 %). This could be explained with pigs' change activity pattern (day/night), especially, pigs with lower status of social hierarchy. Key words: pigs, diurnal variation, ammonia emissions, microclimatic conditions

show abstract

“…Problems of most livestock industries often concern with unpleasant odor generated by animal waste resulting in conflict between producers and the local public. In fact, many factors that cause air pollution are associated with farm management (Hamelin et al, 2010;Ivanova-Peneva et al, 2008;Melse & Timmerman, 2009;Sheridan et al, 2002;Van der Werf et al, 2005;Pan et al, 2006. Numerous animal farms has employed E-nose for odor monitoring such as pig (Brose et al, 2001;Lorwongtragool et al, 2010), poultry (Sohn et al, 2008), sheep (Cramp et al, 2009) and cattle farms (Lane & Wathes, 1998).…”

Section: Animal Wastementioning

confidence: 99%