Influence of Treatment Techniques for Pig Slurry on Methane Emissions during Subsequent Storage

Martinez, J.; Guiziou, Fabrice; Peu, Pascal; Gueutier, V.

doi:10.1016/s1537-5110(03)00067-9

Cited by 63 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Peak c, which persisted until the end of storage, belongs to a group of microorganisms comprising M. organophilum, Methanogenium frigidum, and uncultured microorganisms observed in Antarctic sediment (32). The persistence of these archaeal groups is consistent with the methane production observed during pig slurry anaerobic storage (5 to 70 g C-CH 4 · m Ϫ3 · day Ϫ1 ) (24). No acetotrophic methanogen was identified, despite the high acetate concentration in pig slurry.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

“…After a few weeks, the effluent is generally evacuated to a large outdoor storage tank, where it stays for 4 to 6 months until it can be spread onto arable land (5). Although this type of husbandry is a success for pig production, the different stages of waste management generate severe air, soil, and water pollution (5,14,24,25,46,47). Moreover, spreading large amounts of manure onto fields raises questions about the sanitary aspects of such practices (5,7,26,27,30).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dynamics of a Pig Slurry Microbial Community during Anaerobic Storage and Management

Peu¹,

Brugère

Pourcher

et al. 2006

Appl Environ Microbiol

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The microbial community of a pig slurry on a farm was monitored for 6 months using both molecular and cultural approaches. Sampling was carried out at all the different stages of effluent handling, from the rearing build-up to slurry spreading. Total DNA of each sample was extracted and analyzed by PCR-single-strand conformation polymorphism (SSCP) analysis using primers targeting the 16S rRNA genes from the archaeal and bacterial domains and also the Eubacterium-Clostridium, Bacillus-Streptococcus-Lactobacillus, and Bacteroides-Prevotella groups. A comparison of the SSCP profiles showed that there were rapid changes in the dominant bacterial community during the first 2 weeks of anaerobic storage and that the community was relatively stable thereafter. Several bacterial populations, identified as populations closely related to uncultured Clostridium and Porphyromonas and to Lactobacillus and Streptococcus cultured species commonly isolated from pig feces, remained present and dominant from the rearing build-up to the time of spreading. Enumeration of fecal indicators (enterococci and Escherichia coli) performed in parallel using cultural methods revealed the same trends. On the other hand, the archaeal community adapted slowly during pig slurry storage, and its diversity increased. A shift between two hydrogenotrophic methanogenic Methanobrevibacter populations from the storage pit to the pond was observed. Microorganisms present in pig slurry at the time of spreading could not be detected in soil after spreading by either molecular or cultural techniques, probably because of the detection limit inherent in the two techniques.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamics of a Pig Slurry Microbial Community during Anaerobic Storage and Management

Peu¹,

Brugère

Pourcher

et al. 2006

Appl Environ Microbiol

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mechanical or intermittent aeration of manure during storage can also reduce CH 4 emissions (Osada, 2000;Martinez et al, 2003;Loyon et al, 2007), although mechanical aeration may lead to increased CO 2 emissions (Petersen and Sommer, 2011). Decreasing manure temperature to ,108C by removing the manure from the building and storing it outside in cold Gerber, Hristov, Henderson, Makkar, Oh, Lee, Meinen, Montes, Ott, Firkins, Rotz, Dell, Adesogan, Yang, Tricarico, Kebreab, Waghorn, Dijkstra and Oosting climates can also mitigate CH 4 emissions (Monteny et al, 2006).…”

Section: Biofiltrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technical options for the mitigation of direct methane and nitrous oxide emissions from livestock: a review

Gerber

Hristov

Henderson

et al. 2013

Animal

307

218

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although livestock production accounts for a sizeable share of global greenhouse gas emissions, numerous technical options have been identified to mitigate these emissions. In this review, a subset of these options, which have proven to be effective, are discussed. These include measures to reduce CH 4 emissions from enteric fermentation by ruminants, the largest single emission source from the global livestock sector, and for reducing CH 4 and N 2 O emissions from manure. A unique feature of this review is the high level of attention given to interactions between mitigation options and productivity. Among the feed supplement options for lowering enteric emissions, dietary lipids, nitrates and ionophores are identified as the most effective. Forage quality, feed processing and precision feeding have the best prospects among the various available feed and feed management measures. With regard to manure, dietary measures that reduce the amount of N excreted (e.g. better matching of dietary protein to animal needs), shift N excretion from urine to faeces (e.g. tannin inclusion at low levels) and reduce the amount of fermentable organic matter excreted are recommended. Among the many 'end-of-pipe' measures available for manure management, approaches that capture and/or process CH 4 emissions during storage (e.g. anaerobic digestion, biofiltration, composting), as well as subsurface injection of manure, are among the most encouraging options flagged in this section of the review. The importance of a multiple gas perspective is critical when assessing mitigation potentials, because most of the options reviewed show strong interactions among sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The paper reviews current knowledge on potential pollution swapping, whereby the reduction of one GHG or emission source leads to unintended increases in another.

show abstract

“…Available data (e.g., Table 4) show a reduction in CH 4 , and in combined CH 4 and N 2 O emissions from storage of digested manure compared with untreated cattle slurry. Anaerobic digestion will reduce the amount of C recycled to soil, but a new study has found that the long-term stabilisation of manure C in the soil is the same at 12% to 14% irrespective of pre-treatment (Thomsen et al, 2012 Martinez et al (2003) reported reductions in CH 4 emission of 47% to 64% by different chemical additives in pig slurry. In Denmark, slurry acidification to a pH around 6 by sulphuric acid is increasingly used as an NH 3 mitigation strategy.…”

Section: Manure Handling and Treatment For Ghg Mitigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Manure management for greenhouse gas mitigation

Petersen

Blanchard

Chadwick

et al. 2013

Animal

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ongoing intensification and specialisation of livestock production lead to increasing volumes of manure to be managed, which are a source of the greenhouse gases (GHGs) methane (CH 4 ) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O). Net emissions of CH 4 and N 2 O result from a multitude of microbial activities in the manure environment. Their relative importance depends not only on manure composition and local management practices with respect to treatment, storage and field application, but also on ambient climatic conditions. The diversity of livestock production systems, and their associated manure management, is discussed on the basis of four regional cases (Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, China and Europe) with increasing levels of intensification and priorities with respect to nutrient management and environmental regulation. GHG mitigation options for production systems based on solid and liquid manure management are then presented, and potentials for positive and negative interactions between pollutants, and between management practices, are discussed. The diversity of manure properties and environmental conditions necessitate a modelling approach for improving estimates of GHG emissions, and for predicting effects of management changes for GHG mitigation, and requirements for such a model are discussed. Finally, we briefly discuss drivers for, and barriers against, introduction of GHG mitigation measures for livestock production. There is no conflict between efforts to improve food and feed production, and efforts to reduce GHG emissions from manure management. Growth in livestock populations are projected to occur mainly in intensive production systems where, for this and other reasons, the largest potentials for GHG mitigation may be found.Keywords: methane, nitrous oxide, storage, treatment, farm model ImplicationsLivestock manure is a source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, mainly as methane and nitrous oxide. GHG emissions are biogenic and regulated by manure characteristics, and therefore emissions can be manipulated via handling, treatment and storage conditions. Globally, livestock production systems vary widely, and this is also true for GHG mitigation potentials, but generally efforts to conserve nutrients in manure for crop production will also reduce GHG emissions. Future growth in livestock production is projected to occur mainly in confined animal feeding operations, which also appear to have the greatest potential for GHG mitigation. IntroductionSince the mid 20th century, there has been a growing pressure on land resources for production of food and feed for livestock and, increasingly, crops for energy production (Hoogwijk et al., 2005). To fulfil the demand for meat, milk and eggs, livestock production in developing countries is expanding, especially in peri-urban areas (Gerber et al., 2005), and worldwide becomes more specialised (Steinfeld et al., 2006). In consequence of these trends, increasing volumes of livestock manure are produced, which are a source of greenhouse gases (GHGs) contributing t...

show abstract

Influence of Treatment Techniques for Pig Slurry on Methane Emissions during Subsequent Storage

Cited by 63 publications

References 21 publications

Dynamics of a Pig Slurry Microbial Community during Anaerobic Storage and Management

Dynamics of a Pig Slurry Microbial Community during Anaerobic Storage and Management

Technical options for the mitigation of direct methane and nitrous oxide emissions from livestock: a review

Manure management for greenhouse gas mitigation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About