Does Fall Removal of the Dairy Manure Sludge in a Storage Tank Reduce Subsequent Methane Emissions?

Baldé, Hambaliou; VanderZaag, Andrew; Burtt, Stephen D.; Desjardins, Raymond L.

doi:10.2134/jeq2016.03.0083

Cited by 20 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Diurnal cycles in CH 4 emissions showed peak emissions in the early morning (between 0600 and 0800), presumably as manure bubbles on the surface burst through solar heating (Wood et al 2012;Wood et al 2013;Baldé et al 2016). The lack of coupling between air temperature and CH 4 flux is consistent with the fact that the bulk manure temperature is quite stable throughout the day.…”

Section: Diurnal Ghg Emission Patternsmentioning

confidence: 58%

Do volatile solids from bedding materials increase greenhouse gas emissions for stored dairy manure?

Riche¹,

VanderZaag

Wagner-Riddle³

et al. 2017

Can. J. Soil. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current approaches for estimating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from manure storages do not consider contributions due to bedding materials. Compared with sand, wood-based bedding has the potential to increase volatile solids and total solids concentrations and favour crust formation in liquid dairy manure. In this study, the GHG emissions from wood and sand bedding slurries were evaluated monitored continuously for 207 d (1 May-24 Nov. 2014) under "warm season" storage conditions. For both slurries, methane (CH 4 ) made up >95% of the GHG emissions. The sand bedding slurry had minimal crust, which also led to more evaporation and higher ammonia volatilization losses when scaled by nitrogen content. The wood bedding slurry emitted 51% more CH 4 , eight times more nitrous oxide, and 53% more total GHG emissions (CO 2 -eqivalents). However, these differences were reduced if only the initial 123 d (1 May-31 Aug. 2014) of storage was considered. This was presumably related to the slower degradability of the wood bedding. Given these differences bedding choice should be considered in GHG emissions estimates.Résumé : Les approches actuelles employées pour estimer le volume de gaz à effet de serre (GES) que dégagent les réserves de fumier ne tiennent pas compte des émissions issues de la litière. Contrairement au sable, les copeaux de bois peuvent augmenter la concentration de solides volatils (SV) et de solides totaux. Ils favorisent aussi la formation d'une croûte à la surface du lisier des bovins laitiers. Les auteurs ont évalué les émissions de GES des boues de litière ligneuse et sableuse de façon continue pendant 207 jours (du 1 er mai au 24 novembre 2014), soit dans les conditions de stockage de la « belle saison ». Le méthane (CH 4 ) représente plus de 95 % des GES libérés par les deux types de boues. La boue de litière sableuse ne présentait qu'une très mince croûte, si bien que l'évaporation et la volatilisation de l'ammoniac étaient plus importantes, proportionnellement à la quantité d'azote. La boue de litière ligneuse a libéré 51 % de CH 4 de plus, huit fois plus d'oxyde nitreux et 53 % de plus de GES au total (en équivalent de CO 2 ). Toutefois, ces écarts s'atténuent quand on ne tient compte que des 123 premiers jours de stockage (du 1 er mai au 31 août 2014), sans doute à cause de la dégradation plus lente des copeaux de bois. Face à de telles variations, l'estimation des émissions de GES devrait prendre en compte la nature de la litière employée. [Traduit par la Rédaction] Mots-clés : fumier, émissions de gaz à effet de serre, méthane, oxyde nitreux, ammoniac, bovins laitiers.

show abstract

Section: Diurnal Ghg Emission Patternsmentioning

confidence: 58%

Do volatile solids from bedding materials increase greenhouse gas emissions for stored dairy manure?

Riche¹,

VanderZaag

Wagner-Riddle³

et al. 2017

Can. J. Soil. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The farm produced ∼25 m 3 of manure per day with annual emissions of 33 Mg CH 4 (Baldé et al, 2016), or 1155 Mg on a CO 2 –eq basis. Although only CH 4 was measured by Baldé et al (2016), we measured that >96% of CO 2 –eq emissions from liquid dairy manure are from CH 4 . The annual acid cost was calculated assuming this daily manure production over 6 mo.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Greenhouse Gas Mitigation through Dairy Manure Acidification

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Liquid dairy manure storages are sources of methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ammonia (NH3) emissions. Both CH4 and N2O are greenhouse gases (GHGs), whereas NH3 is an indirect source of N2O emissions. Manure acidification is a strategy used to reduce NH3 emissions from swine manure; however, limited research has expanded this strategy to reducing CH4 and N2O emissions by acidifying dairy manure. This study compared control dairy manure (pH 7.4) with two treatments of acidified manure using 70% sulfuric acid (H2SO4). These included a medium pH treatment (pH 6.5, 1.4 mL acid L−1 manure) and a low pH treatment (pH 6, 2.4 mL acid L−1 manure). Emissions were measured using replicated mesoscale manure tanks (6.6 m2) enclosed by large steady state chambers. Both CH4 and N2O were continuously measured (June–December 2017) using tunable diode laser trace gas analyzers. Ammonia emissions were measured three times weekly for 24 h using acid traps. On a CO2 equivalent basis, the medium pH treatment reduced total GHG emissions by 85%, whereas the low pH treatment reduced emissions by 88%, relative to untreated (control) manure. Total CH4 emissions were reduced by 87 and 89% from medium and low pH tanks, respectively. Ammonia emissions were reduced by 41 and 53% from medium and low pH tanks, respectively. Additional research is necessary to make acidification an accessible option for farmers by optimizing acid dosage. More research is need to describe the manure buffering capacity and emission reductions and ultimately find the best approaches for treating farm‐scale liquid dairy manure tanks. Core Ideas Acidification reduced total CO2–eq GHGs from liquid dairy manure by 85 to 88%. Total CH4 emissions were reduced by 87 to 89% from acidified manure. NH3 emissions were reduced by 41 to 53% from acidified manure. A range of yearly H2SO4 cost was estimated to be Can$6.55 to $19.6 cow−1.

show abstract

“…Thus, in dairy farms where liquid manure is gradually loaded in open storage tanks or lagoons, reduction or complete removal of RS can lower the number of well-adapted bacteria and methanogens that may serve as inoculants. It is important to note, however, that RS removal should occur as close as possible to the time when high emissions are expected; therefore, late-spring RS removal is recommended and fall RS removal is unlikely to be effective (3).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…During pumping out of slurry tanks for land application, complete removal is difficult in practice, and residual slurries (RS) of various amounts are usually left in storage. In view of the potential CH 4 emission mitigation strategies from these systems, the inoculum effects of RS in new storages have become the focus of several studies (3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8). Different levels of RS left in storage tanks, especially under actual farm conditions where manure is transferred to tanks gradually throughout the storage period, result in varied ratios of RS to fresh manure throughout the storage period.…”

Section: Importancementioning

confidence: 99%

Targeting Bacteria and Methanogens To Understand the Role of Residual Slurry as an Inoculant in Stored Liquid Dairy Manure

Habtewold

Sokolov

VanderZaag

et al. 2018

Appl Environ Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Microbial communities in residual slurry left after removal of stored liquid dairy manure have been presumed to increase methane emission during new storage, but these microbes have not been studied. While actual manure storage tanks are filled gradually, pilot- and farm-scale studies on methane emissions from such systems often use a batch approach. In this study, six pilot-scale outdoor storage tanks with (10% and 20%) and without residual slurry were filled (gradually or in batch) with fresh dairy manure, and methane and methanogenic and bacterial communities were studied during 120 days of storage. Regardless of filling type, increased residual slurry levels resulted in higher abundance of methanogens and bacteria after 65 days of storage. However, stronger correlation between methanogen abundance and methane flux was observed in gradually filled tanks. Despite some variations in the diversity of methanogens or bacteria with the presence of residual slurry, core phylotypes were not impacted. In all samples, the phylum Firmicutes predominated (∼57 to 70%) bacteria: >90% were members of Clostridia . Methanocorpusculum dominated (∼57 to 88%) archaeal phylotypes, while Methanosarcina gradually increased with storage time. During peak flux of methane, Methanosarcina was the major player in methane production. The results suggest that increased levels of residual slurry have little impact on the dominant methanogenic or bacterial phylotypes, but large population sizes of these organisms may result in increased methane flux during the initial phases of storage. IMPORTANCE Methane is the major greenhouse gas emitted from stored liquid dairy manure. Residual slurry left after removal of stored manure from tanks has been implicated in increasing methane emissions in new storages, and well-adapted microbial communities in it are the drivers of the increase. Linking methane flux to the abundance, diversity, and activity of microbial communities in stored slurries with different levels of residual slurry can help to improve the mitigation strategy. Mesoscale and lab-scale studies conducted so far on methane flux from manure storage systems used batch-filled tanks, while the actual condition in many farms involves gradual filling. Hence, this study provides important information toward determining levels of residual slurry that result in significant reduction of well-adapted microbial communities prior to storage, thereby reducing methane emissions from manure storage tanks filled under farm conditions.

show abstract

Does Fall Removal of the Dairy Manure Sludge in a Storage Tank Reduce Subsequent Methane Emissions?

Cited by 20 publications

References 25 publications

Do volatile solids from bedding materials increase greenhouse gas emissions for stored dairy manure?

Do volatile solids from bedding materials increase greenhouse gas emissions for stored dairy manure?

Greenhouse Gas Mitigation through Dairy Manure Acidification

Targeting Bacteria and Methanogens To Understand the Role of Residual Slurry as an Inoculant in Stored Liquid Dairy Manure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About