Performance of two swine manure treatment systems on chemical composition and on the reduction of pathogens

Abstract

Swine effluents must be correctly handled to avoid negative environmental impacts. In this study, the profiles of two swine manure treatment systems were evaluated: a solid-liquid separation step, followed by an anaerobic reactor, and an aerobic step (System 1); and a biodigester followed by serial lagoons (System 2). Both systems were described by the assessment of chemical, bacterial and viral parameters. The results showed that in System 1, there was reduction of chemicals (COD, phosphorus, total Kjeldhal nitrogen - TKN - and NH(3)), total coliforms and Escherichia coli; however, the same reduction was not observed for Salmonella sp. Viral particles were significantly reduced but not totally eliminated from the effluent. In System 2, there was a reduction of chemicals, bacteria and viruses with no detection of Salmonella sp., circovirus, parvovirus, and torque teno virus in the effluent. The chemical results indicate that the treated effluent can be reused for cleaning swine facilities. However, the microbiological results show a need of additional treatment to achieve a complete inactivation for cases when direct contact with animals is required.

Pathogen Inactivation and the Chemical Removal of Phosphorus from Swine Wastewater

“…Multiple studies have identified Salmonella, Escherichia coli (E. coli), Porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2), and many other microorganisms in swine wastewater even after conventional biological treatment, as anaerobic digestion (Fongaro et al 2014;Viancelli et al 2013;Vanotti et al 2005).…”

“…Pathogens that are resistant to most alternative treatments, as E. coli and PCV2, are used as water quality indicators (Viancelli et al 2013). …”

Productivity and nutritional quality of Urochloa brizantha cv. BRS Piatã grass fertirrigated with swine wastewater in different seasons of the year

“…Brazil is the fourth largest producer and exporter of pork in the world (Marçal et al, 2016), accounting for 3,360.0 Mg year -1 of global pork production (Viancelli et al, 2013). In the last decade, this production increased 38.9% (ABPA, 2016), raising concerns about the daily concentration of residues of the activity.…”

“…Swine wastewater (SW) contains urine, faeces, water, undigested food residues, antimicrobial drug residues and pathogenic microorganisms (Viancelli et al, 2013). When adequately treated, SW may have a high potential for use as fertilizers in agriculture (Kessler et al, 2013;Andrade et al, 2014;Abdoulkader et al, 2015;Egewarth et al, 2015;Homem et al, 2016).…”

Biogas Production Potential in Anaerobic Digestion of Swine Manure With Different Solid Fraction Concentrations and Temperatures

“…Swine farming is an important activity in the agribusiness (VIANCELLI et al, 2013). In the meat market it is responsible for the creation of jobs, acting as an incomestabilizing factor for thousands of families SUZUKI et al, 2014).…”