Gaseous emissions during the fattening of pigs kept either on fully slatted floors or on straw flow

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the environmental impact of the straw-flow system for fattening pigs with the slattedfloor system by measuring pollutant gas emissions such as ammonia (NH 3 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), methane (CH 4 ) and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), manure nitrogen (N) content and emissions of water vapour (H 2 O). Three successive batches of 32 pigs were fattened. For each batch, pigs were allotted to two groups raised in separated rooms fitted either with a concrete totally slatted-floor system (0.75 m 2 per pig) or with a straw-flow system (0.79 m 2 per pig). With this last system, pigs were kept on a sloped floor, straw being provided daily at the top of the pen. Throughout the fattening period, about 34.4 kg of straw were supplied per pig. The straw, mixed with dung, travelled down the slope by pig motion and went out of the pen to a scraped passage. The solid fraction was scraped every day, stored in a heap in the room and removed every month, 1 week before each period of gaseous emission measurement. The liquid fraction was automatically pumped from the scraped passage into a hermetic tank, which was emptied at the end of each fattening period. Rooms were ventilated mechanically in order to maintain a constant ambient temperature. Once a month, the emissions of NH 3 , N 2 O, CH 4 , CO 2 and H 2 O were measured hourly for 6 consecutive days via infrared photoacoustic detection. Mean daily emissions per pig fattened on the slatted floor or on the sloped floor were, respectively, 4.98 and 13.31 g NH 3 , 0.67 and 0.68 g N 2 O, 15.2 and 8.88 g CH 4 , 548 g and 406 g CO 2 equivalents, 1.61 and 1.77 kg CO 2 and 2.33 and 2.95 kg H 2 O. Except for N 2 O emissions, all the differences were statistically significant (P , 0.001). From the slatted-floor system, the amount of slurry removed per fattening period was on average 256 kg per pig. From the straw-flow system, solid manure amounted on average to 209 kg per pig and liquid manure to 53 kg per pig. The total N-content of the manure was 2.23 kg N per pig with the straw-flow system (solid and liquid manure) v. 3.26 kg N per pig for slurry from the slatted-floor system. This reduction of 30% observed with the sloped floor was mainly explained by the higher level of NH 3 -N emissions.

Effects of a high-fibre diet on ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions from gestating sows and fattening pigs

“…This could lead to a more aerated litter with longer straw wisps, which limits N 2 O production. Bedded systems can lead to greater N 2 O emissions thanks to the heterogeneous environment combining aerobic and anaerobic microsites that promote its synthesis (Philippe et al, 2007a(Philippe et al, , 2007b(Philippe et al, and 2012. The emission factors obtained here correspond to the levels usually measured with slatted floor systems.…”

Greenhouse gas emissions from swine operations: Evaluation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change approaches through meta-analysis1

“…Neither temperature nor size of operation was significant. The emissions were compared Osada et ú., 1998Nick et al, 2005Amon et al^007 Jdinàetal.,2007Pfiilippeaal., 2007aPhilippe a al., 2007bCosta and Guarino, 2008GiiariiioetaI,2O08 CabaratK et al, 2009Costa and Guatino, 2009Dourmad et al, 2009Paikovicova et al, 2009 Summary of swine buildings with pit ^"stems (95% CI) Nick et a]., 2004 Philippe tí al., 2007bBlanes-Mdal et al, 2008Cabaraux el al, 2009Dourmad et al, 2009Philippe Ö al., 2009Philippe et al, 2010 Siiinmar>' of swine buildings with bedded systems (95% CI) Amon et al .,2007Philippe et al, 2007a Summary of svvine buildings with straw flow systems (95% CI) Loyon « al, 2007 O\'a-all(95%CI) NjO emission factors on a per head per year basis. Farrowing swine had the greatest CH4 emissions whereas gestating swine had the greatest NjO emissions.…”

Effects of available surface on gaseous emissions from group-housed gestating sows kept on deep litter

“…Besides, the present results showed that, although diet characteristics, feed intakes, animal performances and climate conditions are similar for both groups, CO 2 -emissions may differ because of housing conditions. Former experiments carried out with weaning and fattening pigs reached to the same conclusion (Philippe et al, 2007a and2007b;Cabaraux et al, 2009). Therefore, ignore CO 2 for the CO 2 eq calculation and thus for the GWP evaluation of livestock farming systems may be debatable.…”

“…Therefore, according to IPCC guidelines (IPCC, 2006), CO 2 emissions from livestock are not estimated. However, experiments carried out with weaning and fattening pigs (Philippe et al, 2007a and2007b;Cabaraux et al, 2009) showed that CO 2 -emissions might differ in relation to housing conditions while diet characteristics, feed intakes, animal performances, and climate conditions were similar. The study of CO 2 production from livestock buildings is also important because reference emissions factors are needed for ventilation rate estimation by mass balance method that is particularly used for naturally ventilated buildings (Pedersen et al, 2008).…”