18 JacobsonUSA

8/10/2019 18 JacobsonUSA

1/32

ISAH 2003, Mexico

______________________________

AIR EMISSIONS FROM ANIMAL PRODUCTION BUILDINGS

Larry D. Jacobson 1 , Jose R. Bicudo 2 , David R. Schmidt 1 , Susan Wood-Gay 3 ,Richard S. Gates 2 , and Steven J. o! "

1Professor and Extension Engineer, Dept. of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering,University of Minnesota, St. Paul, M

! Assistant Professor " Professor#$%air, Dept. of Biosystems " Agricultural Engineering,University of &entuc'y, (exington, &)

* Assistant Professor, Dept. of Biological Systems Engineering,+irginia ec%, Blac's-urg, +A

Associate Professor, Dept. of Agricultural " Biosystems Engineering,/o0a State University, /A

AbstractAnimal production operations are a source of numerous airborne

contaminants including gases, odor, dust, and microorganisms. Gases andodors are generated from li estoc! and poultr" manure decomposition #i$s%ortl" after it is produced, #ii$ during storage and treatment, and #iii$ duringland application. &articulate matter and dust are primaril" composed of feedand animal matter including %air, feat%ers, and feces. Microorganisms t%atpopulate t%e gastro'intestinal s"stems of animals are present in fres%l"excreted manure. (t%er t"pes of microorganisms coloni)e t%e manure duringt%e storage and treatment processes. *%e generation rates of odor, manuregases, microorganisms, particulates, and ot%er constituents ar" +it% +eat%er,time, species, %ousing, manure %andling s"stem, feed t"pe, and managements"stem. *%erefore, predicting t%e concentrations and emissions of t%eseconstituents is extremel" di cult.

-i estoc! and poultr" buildings ma" contain concentrations of contaminants t%at negati el" a ect %uman and animal %ealt%. Most of t%ese%ealt% concerns are associated +it% c%ronic or long'term exposure to gases,dust, or microorganisms. Ho+e er, acute or s%ort'term exposures to %ig%concentrations of certain constituents can also %a e a negati e e ect on bot%%uman and animal %ealt%. /or example, t%e agitation and pumping of li uidmanure inside a li estoc! building can generate concentrations of %"drogensul1de t%at are let%al to %umans and animals.

INTRODUCTION

Air emission sources from animal production sites include buildings,

feedlot surfaces, manure storage and treatment units, silage piles, dead animalcompost structures, and a ariet" of ot%er smaller emissions sources. ac% of t%ese sources +ill %a e a di erent emission pro1le #i.e., di erent odor, gases,dusts, and microorganisms emitted$ +it% rates t%at uctuate t%roug%out t%eda" and t%roug%out t%e "ear. *%erefore, uantif"ing airborne emissions andt%eir impact on t%e surrounding en ironment is extremel" di cult. Alt%oug%t%ere are from t+o ma4or sources of agricultural air emissions5 animal %ousingand +aste management s"stems, t%is paper +ill pro ide information on


2/32


3/32

ISAH 2003, Mexico

______________________________

EMISSION MEASUREMENT

De nitions

mission refers to t%e rate at +%ic% gases or particulates are beingreleased into ambient air. It is also a mass ux per unit area and time from aparticular surface. *%is is in contrast to concentration'onl" measurements.mission rates are determined b" multipl"ing t%e concentration of a

component b" t%e olumetric o+ rate at +%ic% a component at a gi enconcentration is being emitted. Surprisingl", +%ile accuratel" measuring gasand odor concentrations +it%in facilities is feasible, t%e determination of building or manure management s"stem emissions is not straig%tfor+ard. /orexample, it is not su cient to count t%e number of fans, multipl" b" somea erage fan entilation rate, and t%en multipl" b" t%e gas concentration.-i!e+ise, it is not su cient to estimate mass ux of a speci1c gas from t%esurface of litter on a oor, or manure +it%in t%e facilit", and t%en assume t%ebuilding emission is constant regardless of t%e number of fans running6 nor+ould it be appropriate to assume all similar facilities ex%ibit similar emissions.7%ile t%ese aforementioned crude estimates mig%t be suitable for a roug%8ball'par!9 estimate of building emission, at best t%e" +ould be onl" useful fort%at point in time and t%e" completel" neglect t%e e ect of dail" %usbandr"acti ities #feeding, lig%ts, etc$ and disturbances to t%e t%ermal control s"stems#especiall" +eat%er s"stems$.

(dor and gas emission rates are often normali)ed to t%e number and+eig%t of animals b" di iding t%e total emission rate b" t%e number of animalunits #A:$, +%ere one A: is e ual to ;00 !g of animal li e +eig%t. missionexpressed in terms of A: is often referred to as t%e emission factor. Area'speci1c emission, or ux rate, is determined b" di iding t%e total emission rateb" t%e emitting surface area. *%us t%e comparison of emissions from ariousstudies is often di cult if not done on t%e same basis, suc% as A:, animal li e+eig%t, animal place, area, or olume or +eig%t of manure. /urt%ermore, t%ede1nitions of A: and animal place are not standardi)ed. *%erefore, con ersionof emissions reported in one stud" to t%e units used in anot%er stud" is notal+a"s possible6 and +%en done, ma" lead to misleading interpretations. Also,data collection periods ar" +idel", ranging from a fe+ %ours to se eral da"s.In some cases units from original data sources +ere con erted to grams of compound per A: and per da" for comparison purposes, but t%is ma" not full"correspond to actual emission measurements.


4/32

ISAH 2003, Mexico

______________________________

poultr" and li estoc! facilities ma!e t%is especiall" so, including dustaccumulation on s%utters and blades, loose belts, loss of building staticpressure +%ic% results in ariable entilation e ecti eness, and poor mixing,etc.

=asicall", t%ree met%ods can be used for determining building entilationrates. (ne met%od, used for in situ entilation measurement, %as beende eloped b" Simmons et al. #>??@a$ and %as been used in poultr" facilities#Simmons et al., >??@b$. *%e de ice is a motori)ed anemometer arra"controlled and monitored +it% a computer. It uses 1 e propeller'dri en ???$. If t%is con ention is follo+ed, t%enodor emission rates #(: s '> $ from a li estoc! building or manure storage unitare t%e product of t%e entilation air o+ rate #m 3 s '> $ t%roug% t%e barn or o ert%e storage and t%e odor concentration #(: m '3 $ in t%e ex%aust air.

/e+ researc%ers %a e attempted to uantif" odor and gas emission ratesfrom animal %ousing and results are +idel" ariable. *able > lists odor uxrates measured from buildings for arious animal species. *%is ariation li!el"stems from t%e lac! of standardi)ed met%ods used to measure bot% odor andemissions. /or example, air samples are often collected and stored in *edlar bags until e aluation b" d"namic olfactometr" can be performed. Ho+e er,%ang et al. #200>$ reported t%at t%ese bags emitted signi1cant le els of aceticacid and p%enol, +%ic% are common odorants found in li estoc! and poultr"manure. In addition, t%e *edlar bag +as found to %a e an absorpti eselecti it" for certain odorants suc% as indole and s!atole. *%e +%ite paper onodor mitigation for concentrated animal feeding operations #S+eeten et al.,2002$ gi es a detailed description and discussion of odor sampling andmeasurement.

-im et al. #2002$ e aluated odor emission and c%aracteristics at t+ocommercial s+ine nurseries during t%e spring. /i e sampling isits +ere madeto eac% nurser" and nine or ten air samples +ere collected during eac% isit.%u et al. #2000b$ measured odor at se en di erent facilities to determine dail"ariations. Air samples +ere collected e er" t+o %ours o er a >2'%our period

during t%e da". 7atts et al. #>??D$ measured odor emissions from a feedlot penusing a portable +ind tunnel o er a 1 e'da" period follo+ing KD mm of rain. *%e %ig%est emission occurred about D@ %ours after t%e last rainfall. *%e pea!odor concentration +as about K0 times %ig%er t%an odors from t%e dr" pen.

#ab$e 1. 2dor 3ux rates from animal %ousing

Location Odor Flux Rat R ! r nc


7/32

ISAH 2003, Mexico

______________________________

S" cis

Productionunit

OU # $ s %&

&igs Jurser" #deeppit$

Indiana >.>'2. -im et al. #2002$

Jurser" Minnesota .3'D . %u et al. #2000b$

/inis%ing Minnesota 3.D'>>.? %u et al. #2000b$/arro+ing Minnesota 3.2' .? %u et al. #2000b$Gestation Minnesota D.@'2>.3 %u et al. #2000b$All t"pes Minnesota 0.2;'>2.K Ga" et al. #2002$

&oultr" =roiler Minnesota 0.>'0.3 %u et al. #2000b$All t"pes Minnesota 0.3'3.; Ga" et al. #2002$

air" /ree'stall Minnesota 0.3'>.@ %u et al. #2000b$All t"pes Minnesota >.3'3.0 Ga" et al. #2002$

=eef /eedlot Minnesota D.D'>K.; Ga" et al. #2002$/eedlot Australia >2.;' 2; 7atts et al. #>??D$

Ga" et al. #2002$ %a e recentl" summari)ed odor emission rates from o er@0 farms in Minnesota. Mean alues for s+ine %ousing aried from 0.2; to >2.K(: m 2 s '> , poultr" %ousing from 0.32 to 3.;D (: m 2 s '> , dair" %ousing from >.3to 3.0 (: m 2 s '> , and beef feedlots from D.D to >K.; (: m 2 s '> . Bentilation ratesfor mec%anicall" entilated buildings +ere calculated as t%e sum of t%e air o+rates for eac% fan. /an air o+ rates +ere determined b" measuring staticpressure across t%e fan using a manometer and referring to fan rating tablesfor t%e corresponding air o+ alues. /or naturall" entilated barns, rates +ereestimated using mass exc%ange rates based on t%e carbon dioxide #


8/32

ISAH 2003, Mexico

______________________________

communities +it% t%e result t%at plants +%ic% prefer lo+ nitrogen soilsdisappear and t%ere is an increase in nitrogen indicator plants # llenberg,>?@@$. Second, acidi1cation in soils +it% lo+ bu er capacit" ma" occur afternitri1cation of t%e added nitrogen. A falling pH leads to t%e dissolution of toxicsoil constituents suc% as aluminum ions, and to t%e leac%ing of nutrients andaluminum into t%e ground+ater #Ban =reemen et al., >?@2, Speirs and /rost,>?@ , oelofs et al., >?@;, Speirs and /rost, >?@ $. *%ird, t%e natural capabilit"of forest soil to ta!e up met%ane #


9/32

ISAH 2003, Mexico

______________________________

Ammonia release from animal sources is pre alent due to t%e ine cientcon ersion of feed nitrogen to animal product. -i estoc! and poultr" are oftenfed surplus nitrogen +it% %ig% protein feeds to ensure nutritional re uirementsare met. Jitrogen t%at is not metaboli)ed into animal protein is excreted in t%eurine of s+ine and cattle and in t%e uric acid excreted b" poultr". /urt%ermicrobial action releases JH 3 to t%e atmosp%ere.

Ammonia le els of ; to >0 ppm are t"pical in +ell' entilated s+inecon1nement buildings +%ere slatted oors allo+ manure to fall intounderground manure storage pits. ??@b$ or in t%e manure storage area of %ig% rise la"er %ouses#7at%es et al., >?? $. Ber" %ig% le els of JH 3 concentrations, suc% as 2,;00ppm ma" be fatal. *%e :.S. (ccupational Safet" and Healt% Administration#(SHA$ indoor @'% JH 3 exposure t%res%old is 2; ppm, +%ic% is similar to JH 3t%res%old limits in man" ot%er countries #A??2$.

A recent ammonia emission in entor" from :F agriculture estimatedemission as >? !t JH 3 'J "ear '> #Misselbroo! et al., 2000, &ain et al., >??@$.missions from li estoc! and poultr" %ousing accounted for C, >2C, and >?Cfor pigs, poultr", and cattle, respecti el".

*able 2 lists publis%ed ammonia emissions from li estoc! and poultr"%ousing.

#ab$e 2. Ammonia emission factors from livestoc' and poultry %ousing

S" cis

Production unit

Not s E#issionFactor

' N( ) AU %&

da*%&

R ! r nc

&ig /inis% &artl" slatted D2 Aarnin! et al. #>??;$/inis% -itter 3D'?0 Groot Foer!amp et al.

#>??@a$/inis% -itter ;0'K2 Groot Foer!amp et al.

#>??@a$/inis% /ull" slatted 2 Hin) and -in!e, #>??@$/inis% /ull" slatted >2@ emmers et al. #>???$/inis% /ull" slatted L no

pigs;'@ Ji et al. #2000$

/inis% Slurr" remo ed+ee!l"

30 (sada et al. #>??@$

/inis% /ull"'slatted 32 (sada et al. #>??@$

/inis% /ull" slatted D0';0 Ji et al. #2000$/inis% /ull" slatted #+arm+eat%er$

K@'2 D Ji et al. #2000$

/inis% /ull" slatted >0'@0 %u et al. #2000a$/inis% /ull" slatted 3>0 a%n et al. #200>$Gestation -itter >@' @ Groot Foer!amp et al.

#>??@a$Gestation Slats 2;'D0 Groot Foer!amp et al.


10/32

ISAH 2003, Mexico

______________________________

#>??@a$Gestation /ull" slatted 2.2 %u et al. #2000a$Jurser" Slats >;.K'3 .D Groot Foer!amp et al.

#>??@a$Jurser" /ull" slatted 23'>K0 %u et al. #2000a$

&oultr" -a"er 7inter >?0 7at%es et al. #>?? $-a"er Summer 300 7at%es et al. #>?? $-a"er eep litter > '2K> Groot Foer!amp et al.

#>??@a$-a"er =atter" >D'22D Groot Foer!amp et al.

#>??@a$=roiler 7inter and Summer 2>K 7at%es et al. #>?? $=roiler -itter ;3'200 Groot Foer!amp et al.

#>??@a$=roiler -itter D; emmers et al. #>???$=roiler -itter ;.@'@.D %u et al. #2000a$

=eef Stra+ bedding @.?'2>.K Groot Foer!amp et al.#>??@a$

Slats @.D'>K.K Groot Foer!amp et al.#>??@a$Stra+ bedding >?.D emmers et al. #>??@$/eedlot >@.3'K . Hutc%inson et al. #>?@2$

air" Stra+ bedding K.2'2>.D Groot Foer!amp et al.#>??@a$

/ree stall 20.2'D2.; Groot Foer!amp et al.#>??@a$

/ree stall +it% stra+ 3>. emmers et al. #>??@$

Ammonia emissions from beef feedlots and dair" facilities appear to beless ariable and lo+er t%an JH 3 emissions from s+ine and poultr" %ousing.

Ho+e er, t%e limited number of data from beef and dair" operations ma"account for t%e lo+ range in alues.

2.? g JH 3 A: '> %r'> , +%ere A: is an animal unitcorresponding to ;00 !g bod" mass. Jumbers from pig 1nis%ing units appear tobe %ig%er t%an bot% gestation and nurser" facilities. Measurements frompoultr" facilities indicate t%at ammonia emission factors ar" ;0'fold, from 0.2Dto >2.; g JH 3 A: '> %r'> . mission factors from la"er facilities seem to beconsistentl" %ig%er t%an t%ose from broiler facilities.

A recentl" completed :.S. &A funded stud" #Strader et al., 2000, citing apre ious stud" b" =att"e et al., >??D$, stated t%at li estoc! #including poultr"$contribute ;0' 0C of t%e total national ammonia emission in entor", +%ic% isabout ;,300 !tN"ear. Ho+e er, t%e underl"ing emission factors for di erentli estoc! and poultr" t"pes +ere ta!en from a s"stems anal"sis +it% limited:.S. agricultural input #=att"e et al., >??D$ and "et +ere used to extrapolate toan entire national le el. /or example, t%e :S' &A estimated annual emission forla"er %ens is approximatel" D3;g JH 3 per bird #+%ic% can be traced bac! to t%e=att"e report$. =" contrast, *%e Jet%erlands currentl" use a range of >0'@3 g


11/32

ISAH 2003, Mexico

______________________________

JH 3 per bird annual emissions #Groot Foer!amp et al., >??@b$. >3,300 metric tons of JH 3. *%is example clearl" indicates t%at t%e lac! of ualit", scienti1c'basedemission data ma" result in s"stem models t%at predict %ig%l" inaccurateestimates of JH 3 emission contribution b" animal production.

*%e limited number of JH 3 emission data for beef and dair" facilities s%o+a narro+er range and signi1cantl" lo+er alues as compared to s+ine andpoultr". Ga" et al. #2002$ %a e recentl" summari)ed JH 3 ux rates from KKfarms in Minnesota. S+ine %ousing means aried from 0.3; to >3.0 g JH 3 m '2da" '> , poultr" %ousing from 2.@; to @.0 g JH 3 m '2 da" '> , dair" about 3. g JH 3 m '2 da" '> , and beef feedlots from 2.2 to D.D g JH 3 m '2 da" '> . Bentilation rates frommec%anicall" entilated buildings +ere determined b" measuring staticpressure across t%e fan. /or naturall" entilated buildings a ??;$. esign modi1cations are based on reducing t%earea of t%e emitting surfaces, fre uent remo al of slurr" from t%e %ouses,mo ement of slurr" t%roug% slats, temperature control and entilation rates.:se of sloped 8catc% pans9, gutters and narro+ collection c%annels %elp reduceemitting surfaces under t%e slats. eductions in ammonia emission from ne+buildings aried from 30 to 0C as compared to con entional buildings.

In t%e :nited States, %oop structures +it% stra+ bedding are beingconsidered as an alternati e to large'scale con1nement structures for s+ineproduction #=rumm et al., >?? $. (n deep litter s"stems #K.@ !g stra+ pig '> da" '>$, ammonia emission is comparable +it% emission from a full" slatted oorbarn #Balli et al., >??D$. missions can be !ept at lo+ le els b" increasing t%eamount of stra+ or b" allo+ing partial urine drainage. Ho+e er, emissions of nitrogen gases in deep litter s"stems tend to be %ig%er due to t%e formation of J 2( +%ic% contributes to t%e green%ouse e ect and a ects t%e o)one la"er#Groenestein and /aassen, >??K$.

*raditional met%ods of JH 3 control in buildings %a e in ol ed remo al of manure, dr"ing of manure to a oid or reduce urease brea!do+n, and litter


12/32

ISAH 2003, Mexico

______________________________

amendments to control pH in broiler litter. Groot Foer!amp et al. #>??@b$reported on t%e e ects of a litter dr"ing s"stem on t%e composition of t%e litterand t%e emission of ammonia from a tiered +ire oor poultr" %ousing s"stemfor la"ers. *%e" concluded t%at forced air mo ement #0.; m 3 %r'> per %en$abo e t%e litter en%anced t%e e aporation of +ater from t%e litter substantiall"as compared to no forced air mo ement abo e t%e litter. -itter dr" mattercontent +as !ept abo e ?00 g !g '> and t%e *otal Ammoniacal Jitrogen #*AJ$concentration #0. g !g '> $ and pH # .3$ decreased as compared to t%ecomposition of litter in poultr" %ouses +it%out dr"ing of litter. *%e c%ange inlitter composition apparentl" %elped lo+er ammonia emissions. *%e lo+estle els of ammonia emission #about 2.0 mg %en '> %r'> $ +ere recorded +%enmanure +as remo ed more fre uentl" and more entilation +as pro ided.

Oang et al. #2000$ determined nitrogen losses from four %ig%'rise la"ing%en %ouses located in Io+a. Jitrogen losses +ere bet+een 2; and D>C basedon *otal F4elda%l Jitrogen #*FJ$ in feed. *%e" found t%at t%e %ig%er t%emoisture content of manure, t%e %ig%er t%e ratio bet+een JH 3 and *FJ inmanure, and t%erefore, t%e %ig%er t%e percentage of J loss. *%ese 1ndings arein reasonable agreement to t%e conclusions reac%ed b" utc% researc%ers in apre ious stud" described abo e #Groot Foer!amp et al., >??@b$.

It is a common broiler industr" practice to manipulate minimumentilation rates continuousl" to stri!e a balance bet+een t%e need for energ"conser ation #supplemental %eat must be pro ided during cold +eat%er$ andindoor air ualit" #Gates et al., >??K, in et al., >??K$. ecent ad ances in+ater deli er" s"stems %a e greatl" impro ed poultr" en ironments #Gates etal., >??K$, to t%e point +%ere problems +it% dust and gases %a e replaced%umidit" as a common complaint to extension personnel and consultants. 7it%a tendenc" for lo+er litter moisture content, less ammonia is generated andolatili)ed. Ho+e er, t%is ma" be o set b" an industr" practice of reusingbroiler litter for multiple oc!s6 if litter moisture is %ig% enoug% to supporturease brea!do+n t%en t%e potential for %ig% ammonia emission existsbecause total litter J is greater.

Ammonia emissions from cattle %ousing is usuall" in uenced b" t%eooring s"stem, t"pe of bedding and manure %andling s"stem #slats, scrape, orus%$. Froodsma et al. #>??3$ determined t%e e ects of di erent oor t"pesand us%ing on ammonia emission rates from free'stall dairies. Scraped or dirt"solid oors ga e t%e %ig%est ammonia emission #about >; g JH 3 m '2 da" '> $,+%ile us%ing ga e t%e lo+est #; g JH 3 m '2 da" '> $. Scraped or dirt" slattedoors +ere found to emit about ? g g JH 3 m '2 da" '> .

=raam et al. #>?? $ loo!ed at practical +a"s to reduce ammonia emissionfrom double'sloped solid oors +it% a central urine gutter in dair" %ouses. *%e"found t%at ammonia emission from t%e compartment +it% t%e double'slopedsolid oor operating +it% one urine gutter and +it%out +ater spra"ing +asreduced b" ;0C +%en compared to a control #slatted oor +it% under oorslurr" pit$. Ammonia emission +as furt%er reduced +%en +ater +as spra"edafter scraping.

S+ierstra et al. #200>$ %a e recentl" reported on a groo ed oor s"stemconsisting of prefabricated concrete elements +it% perforations spaced >.> mapart to c%annel urine from t%e oor. /eces +ere remo ed e er" t+o %ours b" a


13/32

ISAH 2003, Mexico

______________________________

mec%anical scraper and +ere dumped into t%e pit t%roug% a oor opening att%e end of t%e alle". *%e blade of t%e scraper +as e uipped +it% a toot%'s%apedrubber strip to clean t%e groo es. Ammonia emissions from t%e groo ed oor+ere found to be DKC less t%an emissions from a reference oor #concreteslotted oor$. ??3$ +as unable to erif" t%is response, ands%o+ed t%at muc% %ig%er amounts of t%e extract #K,000 ppm$ +as needed formaximal suppression of ammonia from urea.

educed crude protein diets containing s"nt%etic amino acids %a e beens%o+n to reduce nitrogen excretion in pigs, +%ic% can lead to potential reducedammonia emissions #Hartung and &%illips, >??D, ?? , >??@, etc.$.eductions in ammonia emissions from 2@ to ?C t%roug% diet modi1cations ins+ine %a e been reported #Sutton et al ., >???$.

/erguson et al. #>??@ a,b$ %a e examined t%e e ects of diet manipulationon t%e litter e uilibrium JH 3 gas concentration in broiler %ousing. Gas +assampled using an e uilibrium c%amber. uilibrium concentrations bet+een ;3and @3 ppm +ere obtained for di erent diet treatments. educing crudeprotein caused e uilibrium JH 3 gas concentration to decline b" about 30C.Gates et al. #2000$ also reported on t%e e ect of reduced crude protein one uilibrium JH 3 broiler litter. uilibrium JH 3 concentrations aried from 0 to>K> ppm, depending on t%e oc! number, entilation rate, and diet treatment.A lo+ crude protein diet resulted in about ?0C reduction in e uilibrium JH 3concentration e en for used litter. *%e di erences bet+een t%e Gates #2000$and /erguson #>??@b$ studies +ere basicall" litter moisture content andnumber of oc!s. Gates #2000$ +or!ed +it% signi1cantl" drier litter #>K L 2;C$


14/32

ISAH 2003, Mexico

______________________________

t%an /erguson #>??@b$ #;0 L K0C$ and too! measurements o er a periode ui alent to t%e raising of t%ree oc!s using t%e same litter, +%ile /erguson#>??@b$ data is from one oc! onl".

educed crude protein diets also %elp reduce JH 3 emissions from dair"and beef cattle. Pames et al. #>???$ reported a 2@C reduction in JH 3 emissionfrom dair" co+s fed a lo+ crude protein ration. Smits et al. #>??;$ obser edfurt%er reductions in JH 3 emissions as compared to Pames et al. #>???$ stud".Flopfenstein and ric!son #200>$ obser ed reductions in JH 3 emissions fromt%e surface of beef cattle feedlots bet+een >; and 30C +%en cattle +ere fed alo+er crude protein diet.

iet manipulation as +ell as its e ects on manure production andcomposition is addressed in detail in anot%er +%ite paper #Sutton et al., 2002$.

NITROUS O+IDE

Jitrous oxide is a product of bot% nitri1cation and denitri1cation. &a%l etal. #200>$ demonstrated t%at t%ere +as a large ariation in t%e split bet+eennitri1cation and denitri1cation processes as t%e source of J 2( production. *%eirresults s%o+ed t%at speci1c conditions could fa or nitri1cation or denitri1cationto be t%e principal source of J 2( emissions5 #i$ t%roug% denitri1cation underox"gen in%ibition6 or #ii$ t%roug% nitri1cation in aerobic s"stems, in combination+it% t%e presence of nitri1cation products. *%erefore, J 2( can be released atan" stage of li estoc! production +%ere conditions fa or t%ese processes#???$. -eac%ing, absorption b" plants, or utili)ation b"microorganisms indirectl" in uences t%e production of J 2(.

Jitrous oxide emissions are an en ironmental concern. Houg%ton et al.#>??2$ stated t%at J 2( is approximatel" 200 times more e cient t%an da" '> . *%elo+est emissions alues +ere from s+ine %ousing and t%e %ig%est +ere frompoultr" %ousing. ???$ also noted t%at dair" %ousing +it%slurr"'based s"stems %ad signi1cantl" lo+er J 2( emissions t%an dair" %ousingt%at used stra+ bedding.

(,DROGEN SULFIDE

H"drogen sul1de is formed b" bacterial sulfate reduction and t%edecomposition of sulfur'containing organic compounds in manure underanaerobic conditions #Arogo et al., 2000$. H 2S gas is colorless, %ea ier t%an air,


15/32

ISAH 2003, Mexico

______________________________

%ig%l" soluble in +ater and %as t%e c%aracteristic odor of rotten eggs at lo+concentrations. At concentrations around 30 ppb t%e H 2S odor can be detectedb" o er @0C of t%e population #Sc%i man et al., 2002$. *%e :.S. (SHA %asimplemented a >0 ppm limit for indoor @'%our H 2S exposures to protect %uman+or!er %ealt% #A??2$. Most %uman %ealt% problems associated +it%%"drogen sul1de emissions are related to emissions from paper mills,re1neries, and meat pac!ing plants #Sc%i man et al., 2002$. ?@;$ reported on H 2S concentrations in t%ree commercial la"ing barns under+inter conditions. Jo detectable traces of H 2S +ere found in t+o barns and amaximum H 2S concentration of 30 ppb +as measured in t%e t%ird barn.

Se eral researc%ers %a e studied t%e e ects of s+ine dietar" sulfur inta!eon H 2S le els in pig %ousing. S%urson et al. #>??@$ reported a reduction in H 2Semissions from nurser" pigs fed a lo+ sulfur diet as compared to a traditionaldiet. on%am et al. #>?@@$ documented a positi e, but not signi1cant,correlation bet+een sulfate le els in drin!ing and cleaning +ater and t%esul1de content in s+ine manure. A slig%tl" positi e relations%ip bet+een totalsul1des in manure and %"drogen sul1de concentration in t%e building ex%austair +as also reported.

A limited amount of researc% %as focused on H2S emissions from animal%ousing. Most of t%is data is from s+ine facilities #*able 3$. Measurements

obtained b" %u et al. #2000a$ +ere reported for a >2'%our period, and aluess%o+n in *able K +ere not con erted to a 2D'%our period.

#ab$e 3. 5ydrogen sul de emission factors from livestoc' and poultry %ousing

S" ci Producti Not s E#ission R ! r nc


16/32

ISAH 2003, Mexico

______________________________

s on unit Factor-' ( $ S AU %&

da* %&.&ig /inis% /ull" slatted 2.D'22.K Ji et al. #2002$

/inis% /ull" slatted L no pigs 0.22'0.D? Ji et al. #2000$

/inis% /ull" slatted >.2; Ji et al. #2000$/inis% /ull" slatted #mec%anicall"entilated$

; %u et al.#2000a$

/inis% /ull" slatted #naturall"entilated$

2' %u et al.#2000a$

/arro+ing /ull" slatted D %u et al.#2000a$

Gestation /ull" slatted > %u et al.#2000a$

Jurser" /ull" slatted 23'>K0 %u et al.#2000a$

&oultr" =roiler -itter 3.3 %u et al.#2000a$


17/32

ISAH 2003, Mexico

______________________________

H"drogen sul1de emissions from s+ine and poultr" %ousing tend to beunder ; g H 2S A: '> da" '> . Ji et al. #2002$ found t%at diurnal uctuations anddi erences bet+een dail" H 2S mean concentrations +ere relati el" large andt%at spatial di erences +ere not signi1cant +%en a eraged o er longdurations.

Ga" et al. #2002$ reported on H 2S emissions rates from @0 farms inMinnesota. Mean H 2S emissions aried from 0.02 to >.; g H 2S m '2 da" '> froms+ine %ousing, from 0.03 to 0.3; g H 2S m '2 da" '> from poultr" %ousing, from0.0? to 0.2; g H 2S m '2 da" '> from dair" %ousing, and +ere about 0.>; g H 2S m '2da" '> from beef feedlots. Bentilation rates +ere measured as explained before.

*%is data set +as sub4ect to large ariabilit" and it is di cult to compare it toot%er data reported in terms of A:. Ho+e er, t%is data indicates t%at H 2Semissions are consistentl" %ig%er for s+ine %ousing as compared to poultr" anddair" %ousing and beef feedlots. More data is needed to identif" baseline H 2Semissions from li estoc! and poultr" %ousing.

MET(ANE

Met%ane #


18/32

ISAH 2003, Mexico

______________________________


19/32

ISAH 2003, Mexico

______________________________

#ab$e %. Measured met%ane emission factors 6M$48 for dairy co0s

S*st # T*" MCF sti#at s b*Sa1 * and Casada-&22$.

MCF # asur d at $34CSt d and (as5i#oto-&22/.

&astureN/eedlot >0 0.3-i uid slurr" 20'?0 ;;.3Solid >0 D;.

Fa%arabata and Sc%uepp #2000$ used an atmosp%eric tracer #S/ K$ toestimate da" '> ,respecti el". ( erall uncertaint" of t%e results +as approximatel" 30C.

(sada et al. #>??@$ measured da" '> . a%n et al. #200>$ measured ?? . Met%ane emissions of >K0 g +erereported # a%n et al., 200>$.

NON%MET(ANE 6OLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND

Animal %ousing and manure %andling s"stems generate a ariet" of gases. Most of t%e researc% conducted to date %as not uanti1ed B(? @$de eloped one of t%e earliest lists of olatile compounds associated +it%

decomposition of cattle, poultr", and s+ine +astes. He listed 32 compoundsreported to %a e come from cattle +astes, > from poultr" +astes, and moret%an ;0 compounds from s+ine +astes. Hartung and &%illips #>??D$ reporteduantitati e information on concentrations found in t%e air of animal %ouses for23 B(??2$ compiled a list of >K@ di erent compoundsidenti1ed in s+ine and poultr" +astes. More recentl", Sc%i man et al. #200>b$identi1ed a total of 33> di erent B(< and 1xed gases from s+ine facilities inJort%


20/32

ISAH 2003, Mexico

______________________________

sulfate and b" bacterial degradation of sulfur'containing amino'acids. %u#2000$ pro ided a t%oroug% re ie+ of t%e micro ora in s+ine manure and itspotential to produce odorous olatile compounds.

Information on B(< emissions from animal %ousing is limited. a%n et al.#200>a$ measured B(< emissions from pull'plug and deep'pit s+ine %ousesduring August and September >?? . *+el e di erent non'met%ane B( .

DUST

&articulates in and around animal production sites include soil particles,bits of feed, dried s!in, %air or feat%ers, dried feces, bacteria, fungi, andendotoxins #Foon et al., >?K3, Anderson et al., >?KK, ? ;b, Heberand Stroi!, >?@@, ? ;a, Heber et al., >?@@$. Sources includeanimals, feed storage and processing sites, oors, manure storage and%andling e uipment, open lots, compost sites, and ot%er elements of animalagriculture s"stems.

/eed +as found to be t%e primar" component of t%e dust in animal%ousing #? ;b, Heber and Stroi!, >?@@, Heber et al., >?@@$. Soilparticles from open unpa ed feedlots also contribute to dust le els #Alegro etal., >? 2, S+eeten et al., >?@@$. ust emissions from feedlots depend on soiltexture, rainfall, feedlot surface moisture content, +ind speed, season, andot%er factors. *%e +%ite paper on particulate matter emissions from con1nedanimal feeding operations L management and control measures #Au ermann etal., 2002$ pro ides more speci1c information on dust emission from cattlefeedlots.

/looring design %as been s%o+n to signi1cantl" a ect t%e airborne dustle els6 solid oors %a e muc% %ig%er le els t%an open'mes% oors #??>, Mag%irang etal., >?? $ and poultr" #Pones et al., >?@D, ?@K$ %ousing rat%ert%an emissions. -imited information is a ailable on dust concentrations in dair"#?@2, on%am et al., >?@K$. Impacts of particulate matter andbioaerosols on %uman %ealt% are discussed in detail in t%e +%ite paper on%ealt% e ects of aerial emissions from animal production and +astemanagement s"stems #Sc%i man et al., 2002$.


21/32

ISAH 2003, Mexico

______________________________

7at%es et al. #>?? $ measured dust emissions from broiler and la"erfacilities in t%e :.F. *able K summari)es t%e results obtained b" 7at%es et al.#>?? $.

#ab$e &. Emission of dust -y poultry %ouses 69at%es et al., 177:8

T*" S ason In5alabldust

-' AU %& 5 %&.

R s"irabldust

-' AU %& 5 %&.-a"ers 7inter 0.? 0.2D=roilers 7inter ;.2 0.K0-a"ers Summer >.> 0.0?=roilers Summer @.2 0.@@


22/32

ISAH 2003, Mexico

______________________________

*a!ai et al. #>??@$ reported on in%alable #includes all si)e particles$ andrespirable #particles t%at are less t%an ; microns$ dust emissions from ariouscattle, s+ine, and poultr" facilities in four uropean countries #*able $.missions +ere estimated from mean dail" dust concentrations near air outletsand t%e dail" mean entilation rate t%roug% t%e buildings.

#ab$e '. Mean in%ala-le and respira-le dust emission factors from Englis%, Dutc%,Danis%, and ;erman livestoc' -uildings 6 a'ai et al., 177@ 0.02( erall mean 0.>; 0.02S7in (ousin' ngland 0.K3 0.0? *%e Jet%erlands 0.K 0.0 enmar! >.>0 0.>2 German" 0.K; 0.0;( erall mean 0. K 0.0?Poultr* (ousin' ngland 3.>D 0.3 *%e Jet%erlands 3.KD 0. 2 enmar! 3.;> 0.K2 German" 2.>2 0.2;( erall mean 3.>? 0.;0

Statistical anal"sis indicated t%at bot% countr" and %ousing t"pe +eresigni1cantl" di erent for in%alable dust emissions #*a!ai et al., >??@$, alt%oug%t%is could be an artifact from measurement s"stem bias. In%alable dustemissions from cattle buildings +ere not a ected b" season. *%ere +eresigni1cant seasonal e ects on in%alable dust emissions from bot% s+ine andpoultr" %ousing. *%e %ig%est dust emissions +ere from perc%eries #la"ing %enfacilities +it% litter ooring and perc%es$ in t%e Jet%erlands and enmar!, andfrom broiler %ouses in ngland and t%e Jet%erlands #*a!ai et al., >??@$. Animalacti it" le el, stoc!ing densit", spilled feed, bedding material selection, and%umidit" le els a ected dust emissions. *%e signi1cance of countr", seasonand ot%er factors suggests t%at results from *a!ai et al. #>??@$ are unli!el" toaccuratel" describe dust emissions from animal buildings in t%e :nited States.

ENDOTO+IN

ndotoxin is a %a)ardous component of airborne particulates in animaloperations. It arises from t%e degradation of Gram'negati e bacterial cell +alland is ubi uitous in t%e agricultural en ironment. ndotoxin is a potent


23/32

ISAH 2003, Mexico

______________________________

in ammator" agent t%at produces s"stemic e ects and lung obstruction, e enat lo+ le els of exposure #Ho et al., 2002$. espite a clear recognition t%atin%aled endotoxin is an occupational %a)ard in li estoc! and poultr"con1nement %ousing #Fullman et al., >??@, *%orne et al., >?? , on%am et al.,>?@?$, cotton processing, egetable processing, 1berglass manufacturing, andmetal mac%ining en ironments, t%ere are no establis%ed occupational exposurelimits in t%e :nited States or $. *%is is probabl"due to t%e fact t%at endotoxin exposure assessment met%ods %a e not beenade uatel" optimi)ed and alidated.

7at%es et al. #>?? $ measured endotoxin emissions from broiler and la"erfacilities in t%e :.F. ndotoxin emissions aried bet+een less t%an > and >0 gA: '> %'> in t%e +inter, and bet+een 30 and D; g A: '> %'> in t%e summer.

Seedorf et al. #>??@$ measured concentrations of airborne endotoxins andmicroorganisms in cattle, s+ine, and poultr" %ousing in four uropean countries# ngland, *%e Jet%erlands, enmar!, and German"$. *%e emission rates +ereestimated b" using t%e entilation rate and t%e indoor concentration. stimatedendotoxin emission rates in t%e in%alable and respirable dust fractions fromarious li estoc! and poultr" %ousing are summari)ed in *able @.

#ab$e (. Mean emission rates of in%ala-le and respira-le endotoxin over ! %ours fromdi=erent livestoc'and poultry %ousing 6Seedorf et al., 177


24/32

ISAH 2003, Mexico

______________________________

-Lo' c!u AU %& 5 %&.-Lo' c!u AU %& 5 %&.

-Lo' c!u AU %& 5 %&.

S7in So+s . K.0 K.; Jurser" pigs .> K.? ;.@

/inis%ing pigs .K K.? K.>Poultr* -a"ers .> .> K.0 =roilers ?.; K.> .@Cattl air" co+s K.@ K.2 K.0 =eef K. K.2 ;.? K.;

Seedorf et al. #>??@$ noted t%at data on t%e biological %alf'life period of iable microorganisms under ar"ing en ironmental conditions +as needed inorder to predict t%eir dispersion and estimate t%e ris! of airborne diseasetransmission. -ocal topograp%", +eat%er, and entilation s"stem design alsoa ect potential contaminant transmission.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial researc% %as been conducted to uantif" t%e air ualit" andemission rates from li estoc! and poultr" facilities. Muc% of t%e +or! related toemission rates +as conducted in urope o er t%e past decade6 more recentl",+or! conducted in t%e :.S. %as begun to be publis%ed. >K.

2. ACGI(: &22$: *%res%old -imit Balues for


25/32

ISAH 2003, Mexico

______________________________

Agents and =iological xposure Indices. American 2D>'>2D;.

K. Aro'o9 ;:9 > st r#an9 P:>:9 ( b r9 A:;:9 Robar' 9 >:P:9 and Class n9 ;:;:$33$: Ammonia emissions from animal feeding operations. ational $enter for Manure and Animal 9aste Management 9%ite Papers , Jort% 2 .

?. Batt* 9 R:9 Batt* 9 >:9 O rcas59 C: and Fud' 9 S: &22/: e elopment andselection of ammonia emission factors. &A K@' 3'003D, :.S. &A Atmosp%ericesearc% and xposure Assessment -aborator", esearc% *riangle &ar!, J0. Bicudo9 ;:R:9 T n'#an9 C:L:9 ;acobson9 L:D:9 and Sulli an9 ;:E: $333: (dor,%"drogen sul1de and ammonia emissions from s+ine farms in Minnesota. Procs. of 2dors and +2$ Emissions !@@@ , K to >?, 7 /, Alexandria,BA #on < ' (M$.

>>. Braa#9 C:R:9 S#its9 M:C:;:9 Gunnin09 (: and S7i rstra9 D: &22 : Ammoniaemission from a double'sloped solid oor in a cubicle %ouse for dair" co+s. >ournalof Agricultural Engineering ?esearc% @ , 3 ;'3@K.

>2. Bru##9 M:C:9 (ar#on9 ;:D:9 (on *#an9 M:C: and , Ames, IA.

>3. Ca5n9 T:T:9 6 rst r' n9 M:>:A:9 Aarnin09 A:;:A:9 and Sc5ra#a9 ;:>: &22 :In uence of dietar" factors on nitrogen partitioning and composition of urine andfeces of fattening pigs. >ournal of Animal Science ? 5 00' 0K.

>D. Ca5n9 T:T:9 Aarnin09 A:;:A:9 Sc5ult 9 ;:B:9 Sutton9 A:9 Lan'5out9 D:;:9 and6 rst r' n9 M:>:A: &22 : ietar" protein a ects nitrogen excretion andammonia emission from slurr" of gro+ing'1nis%ing pigs. (ivestoc' ProductionScience ?@5>@>'>?>.

>;. Car" nt r9 G:A: and Fr* r9 ;:T: &223: Air 1ltration in a pigger"5 1lter design anddust mass balance. >ournal of Agricultural Engineering ?esearc% /@ #3$5> >'>@K.ill.

>K. Car" nt r9 G:A:9 S#it59 E:


26/32

ISAH 2003, Mexico

______________________________

stall dair" barns. $anadian Engineering Agriculture $2 , '@0.20. Curtis9 S:E:9 Dru##ond9 ;:G:9 Grunlo59 D:;:9 L*nc59 P:B: and ; ns n9 A:(:

&2 ?a: elati e and ualitati e aspects of aerial bacteria and dust in s+ine%ouses. >ournal of Animal Science /& #;$5>;>2'>;20.

2>. Curtis9 S:E:9 Dru##ond9 ;:G:9 < ll *9 :9 Grunlo59 D:;:9 M ar s9 6:;:9

Norton9 (:>: and ; ns n9 A:(: &2 ?b: iurnal and annual uctuations of aerialbacterial and dust le els in enclosed s+ine %ouses. >ournal of Animal Science /$5>;02'>;>>.

22. Da7son9 ;:R: &223: Minimi)ing dust in li estoc! buildings5 possible alternati esto mec%anical separation. >ournal of Agricultural Engineering ?esearc% /#D$523;'2D@.

23. D ## rs9 T:G:M:9 Bur' ss9 L:R:9 S5ort9 ;:L:9 P5illi"s9 6:R:9 Clar09 ;:A: and>at5 s9 C:M: &22 : /irst experiences +it% met%ods to measure ammoniaemissions from naturall" entilated cattle buildings in t%e :F. Atmosp%ericEnvironment )$ , 2@;'2?3.

2D. D ## rs9 T:G:M:9 Bur' ss9 L:R:9 S5ort9 ;:L:9 P5illi"s9 6:R:9 Clar09 ;:A: and>at5 s9 C:M: &222: Ammonia emission from t+o mec%anicall" entilated :F li estoc! buildings. Atmosp%eric Environment )) , 2> '22 .

2;. Dillon9 P:;: and Molot9 L:A: &2 2: *%e role of ammonium and nitrate retentionin t%e acidi1cation of la!es and forested catc%ments. In5 %e role of nitrogen in t%eacidi cation of soils and surface 0aters #Malanc%u!, P.-. and Jilsson, P., eds.$,Jordic '2;.

2K. Don5a#9 0.2?. Duc5ain 9 C:9 T5orn 9 P:S:9 M riaux9 A:9 Gri#ard9 ,:9 >5itt n9 P: and

Cor#i n9 ,: $33&: :6:9 ;o5nson9 D:E:9 and Goodall9 S:R: &2 ?:

aluation of t%e extent of ruminal urease in%ibition b" sarsaponin and sarsaponinfractions. >. Anim. Sci. @& #Suppl. >$5D?>'D?@.

32. F r'uson9 N:S:9 Gat s9 R:S:9 Taraba9 ;:L:9 Cantor9 A:(:9 P scator 9 A:;:9Stra79 M:L:9 Ford9 M:;:9 and Burn5a#9 D:;: &22 a: *%e e ect of dietar"protein and p%osp%orus on ammonia concentration and litter composition inbroilers . Poultry Science 5>0@;'>0?3.

33. F r'uson9 N:S:9 Gat s9 R:S:9 Taraba9 ;:L:9 Cantor9 A:(:9 P scator 9 A:;:9Ford9 M:;:9 and Burn5a#9 D:;: &22 b: *%e e ect of dietar" crude protein ongro+t%, ammonia concentration, and litter composition in broilers . Poultry Science

5>D@>'>D@ .3D. Fo7l r9 D:9 Pitcairn9 C:E:R:9 Sutton9 M:A:9 Fl c5ard9 C:9 Loub t9 B:9 Co*l 9

M: and Munro9 R:C: &22 : *%e mass budget of atmosp%eric ammonia in+oodland +it%in > !m of li estoc! buildings. Environmental Pollution &3$#S>$53D3'3D@.

3;. Gat s9 R:S:9 O r5ults9 D:G: and 5an'9 S:(: &22@: Minimum entilation for


27/32

ISAH 2003, Mexico

______________________________

modern broiler facilities. ransactions of t%e ASAE )2 , >>3;'>>DD.3K. Gat s9 R:S:9 Taraba9 ;:L:9 Lib rt*9 ournal of

Agricultural Engineering ?esearc% @? #D$52K?'2 D.D0. Groot :G:9 S" l#an9 L: and M t=9 ;:(:M: &22 b: -ittercomposition and ammonia emission in a iar" %ouses for la"ing %ens. >.&erformance of a litter dr"ing s"stem. >ournal of Agricultural Engineering ?esearc%3 #D$53 ;'3@2.

D2. (artun'9 ;: and P5illi"s9 6:R: &22/: .agric.Engng ?es. ? , > 3'>@?.

D3. ( b r9 A:;: and Stroi09 M: &2 : In uence of en ironmental factors onconcentrations and inorganic of aerial dust in s+ine 1nis%ing %ouses. ransactionsof t%e ASAE )& #3$5@ ;'@@>.

DD. ( b r9 A:;:9 Stroi09 M:9 Faubion9 ;:M: and >illard9 L:(: &2 : Si)edistribution and identi1cation of aerial dust particles in s+ine 1nis%ing buildings.ransactions of t%e ASAE )& #3$5@@2'@@ .

D;. (ill#an9 P:9 G br # d5in9 arn r9 R: &22$: Bentilation s"stem tominimi)e airborne bacteria, dust, %umidit", and ammonia in calf nurseries. >ournalof Dairy Science ? , >30;'>3>2.

DK. (in=9 T: and Lin0 9 S: &22 : A compre%ensi e experimental stud" of aerialpollutants in and emissions from li estoc! buildings ' part 25 results. >ournal of

Agricultural Engineering ?esearc% 3 , >>?'>2?.D . (o 9 S:;:9 (ornbuc0l 9 . ; ""sson9 :9 Morrin'9 illia#s9 T: and (ic0 *9 ;: &2 /:

n ironmental stud" of poultr" con1nement buildings. American /ndustrial5ygiene Association >ournal /? #>>$5 K0' KK.

;3.


28/32

ISAH 2003, Mexico

______________________________

from dair" cattle %oused in a barn and feedlot using an atmosp%eric tracer.Environmental Science and ec%nology )/ , 32?K'3302.

;D. < ## 9 P:A:9 ;on'blo d9 A:>:9 D llart9 B:M:9 and ournal of Animal Science 2 5? '>03.

;K. >$5K0@'K0?.

;@. 3'>?.

K;. Miss lbroo09 T:(:9 6an d r > rd n9 T:;:9 Pain9 B:F:9 ;ar is9 S:C:9C5a#b rs9 B:;:9 S#it59 . Agric. Eng. ?es. , ;3'KK.

K@. Ni9 ;:% :9 ( b r9 A:;:9 Di 5l9 C:A:9 Li#9 T:T:9 Du''irala9 R:


29/32

ISAH 2003, Mexico

______________________________

0. O N ill9 D:(: and P5illi"s9 6:R: -&22$.: A re ie+ of t%e control of odournuisance from li estoc! buildings5 &art 3, &roperties of t%e odorous substances+%ic% %a e been identi1ed in li estoc! +astes or in t%e air around t%em.

>.agric.Engng ?es. ?) , 23';0.>. Osada9 T:9 Ro#9 (:B: and Da5l9 P: &22 : '?;0.

3. Pain9 B:F:9 6an d r > rd n9 T:;:9 C5a#b rs9 B:;:9 P5illi"s9 6:R: and ;ar is9S:C: &22 : A ne+ in entor" for ammonia emissions from :F agriculture.

Atmosp%eric Environment )$ , 30?'3>3.D. P5illi"s96:R:9 (old n9 M:R:9 Sn at59R:>:9 S5ort9 ;:L:9 >5it 9 R:P:9 (artun'9

;:9 S dor!9 ;:9 Sc5rod r9 M:9 Lin0 rt9 $5D>'D@.

K. Ro lo!s9 ;:G:M:9 < #" rs9 A:;:9 (oudiH09 A:L:F:M: and ;ans n9 ;: &2 ?: *%ee ect of airborne ammonium sulfate on pinus nigra ar. maritima in t%eJet%erlands. Plant and Soil / D;';K.

. Sa1 *9 L:M: and Casada9 M:E: &22$: Global Met%ane missions from -i estoc!and &oultr" Manure. :.S. n ironmental &rotection Agenc", eport D00N>'?>N0D@,7as%ington, :9 and Bottc5 r9 R:>: $33$: Healt% e ectsof aerial emissions from animal production +aste management s"stems. ational$enter for Manure and Animal 9aste Management 9%ite Papers , Jort% :9 S5ort9 ;:L:9 >5it 9 R:P: and P d rs n9 S: &22 :ournal of Agricultural Engineering?esearc% 3 #>$5? '>0?.

@>. S5urson9 ;:9 >5itn *9 M: and Nicolai9 R: &22 : Jutritional Manipulation of S+ine iets to educe H"drogen Sul1de missions. /inal eport to Minnesotaepartment of Agriculture, epartment of Animal Sciences, :ni ersit" of

Minnesota, St. &aul, MJ.@2. Si##ons9 ;:D:9 (anni'an9 T:E:9 and Lott9 B:D: &22 : A portable anemometer

to determine t%e output of large in'place entilation fans. Applied Engineering in Agriculture >D#K$5KD?'K;3.

@3. Si##ons9 ;:D:9 Lott9 B:D:9 and (anni'an9 T:E: &22 : Minimum distancebet+een entilation fans in ad4acent +alls of tunnel entilated broiler %ouses.

Applied Engineering in Agriculture >D#;$5;33';3;.


30/32

ISAH 2003, Mexico

______________________________

@D. S#its9 M:C:;:9 6al09 (:9 El=in'9 A:9 and < n9 A: &22?: ect of proteinnutrition on ammonia emission from a cubicle %ouse for dair" cattle. (ivestoc' Production Science // 5>D '>;K.

@;. So## r9 S:G: and Moll r9 (:B: $333: mission of green%ouse gases duringcomposting of deep litter from pig production ' e ect of stra+ content. >ournal of

Agricultural Science &)/ , 32 '33;.@K. S" irs9 R:B: and Frost9 C:A: &2 : *%e en%anced acidi1cation of a 1eld soil b"lo+ concentrations of atmosp%eric ammonia. ?esearc% and Development in

Agriculture / #2$5@3'@K.@ . S"i 09 E:9 Sand9 >: and Boc09 E: &223: In uence of ammonia on buildings. In5

Ammonia! in der :m+elt #Hartung, P., &aduc%, M., Sc%ir), S., o%ler, H. and anden 7eg%e H., eds.$, -and+irtsc%afts erlag GmbH, Munster, German".

@@. St d9 ;: and (as5i#oto9 A:G: &22/: Met%ane emissions from t"pical manuremanagement s"stems. Bioresource ec%nology ?3 #2$5>23'>30.

@?. St udl r9 P:A:9 Bo7d n9 R:D:9 M lillo9 ;:M: and Alb r9 ;:D: &2 2: In uence of nitrogen fertili)ation on met%ane upta!e in temperate forest soils. ature )/&3>D'3>K.

?0. Strad r9 R:9 And rson9 N: and Da idson9 C: $333: e elopment of an

Ammonia missions In entor" for t%e Mid'Atlantic States and Je+ ngland.&rogress eport Jo. 3, Mid'Atlantic egional Air Management Association,=altimore, M .

?>. Sutton9 A:L:9 Goodall9 S:R:9 Patt rson9 ;:A:9 Mat5 79 A:G:9 < ll*9 D:T:9 andM * r5olt=9 bb9 ;:9Es" n5a5n9 S:E:9 L 9 D:S:9 (ornun'9 M:9 Ull* tt9 ;:9 Bull9 * rs9 G:P: &22 : ispersion, deposition and impacts of atmosp%eric ammonia5 uantif"ing local budgets and spatial ariabilit".Environmental Pollution &3$ #S>$53D?'3K>.

?D. Sutton9 A:9 A""l 'at 9 T:9 (an0ins9 S:9 (ill9 B: All 9 G:9 Gr n 9 >:9 :9 and an < #" n9 T: $33$: Manipulation of animaldiets to a ect manure production, composition, and odor5 state of t%e science.ational $enter for Manure and Animal 9aste Management 9%ite Papers , Jort%


31/32

ISAH 2003, Mexico

______________________________

U n09 G:(:9 P5illi"s9 6:R:9 (old n9 M:R:9 Sn at59 R:>: and S5ort9 ;:L: &22 :ournal of Agricultural Engineering ?esearc% 3 #>$5;?' .

??. T5orn 9 P:S:9 R *nolds9 S:;:9 Milton9 D:00. USDA :$333: Agricultural Statistics. Jational Agricultural Statistics Ser ice,

7as%ington 0>. 6alli9 L:9 Na arotto9 P: and Bona==i9 G: &22/: 0D. 6o r#ans9 ;:A:M:9 6 rdo s9 N:9 and d n Bro09 G:M: &22?: *%e e ect of pendesign and climate control on t%e emission of ammonia from pig %ouses. Procs. of t%e Sevent% /nternational Symposium on Agricultural and 4ood Processing 9astes ,

Pune >@'20, 0K. >atts9 P:;:9 ;on s9 M:9 Lott9 S:C:9 Tuc0 r9 R:>: and S#it59 R:;: &22/: /eedlotodor emissions follo+ing %ea " rainfall. ransactions of t%e ASAE ) , K2?'K3K.

>0 . > st r#an9 P:>: and 5an'9 R:(: &22 : Aeration of li estoc! manure slurr"and lagoon li uid for odor control5 a re ie+. ASAE Applied Engineering in

Agriculture &) -$. , 2D;'2D?.>0@.+in9 (:9 B rr*9 I:L: and Tabl r9 G:T: &22@: Minimum entilation re uirement

and associated energ" cost for aerial ammonia control in broiler %ouses.ransactions of t%e ASAE )2 , KD;'KD@.

>0?. +in9 (:9 B rr*9 I:L: and Tabl r9 G:T:9 and Cost llo9 T:A: $33&: Heat andmoisture production of poultr" and t%eir %ousing s"stems5 broilers. ransactions of t%e ASAE // #K$, >@;>'>@; .

>>0. ,an'9 P:9 Lori#or9 ;:C: and +in9 (: $333: Jitrogen losses from la"ing %enmanure in commercial %ig%'rise la"er facilities. ransactions of t%e ASAE /) ,>> >'>>@0.

>>>. a5n9 ;:A:9 Tun'9 A:E:9 Rob rts9 B:A: and (at ld9 ;:L: $33&b: Abatement of ammonia and %"drogen sul1de emissions from a s+ine lagoon using a pol"merbioco er. >ournal of t%e Air " 9aste Management Association ?& , ;K2'; 3.

>>2. 5an'9 ;:9 < n r9 :9 and Munilla9 R: D:$33&:Quanti1cation of odorant reco eries from tedlar bags. Procs. of t%e /nternationalSymposium addressing Animal Production and Environmental /ssues , aleig%, J>3. 5u9 ;: $333: A re ie+ of microbiolog" in s+ine manure odor control. Agriculture,Ecosystems and Environment , ?3

>>D. 5u9 ;:9 ;acobson9 L:D:9 Sc5#idt9 D:R: and Nicolai9 R: $333: ail" ariationsin odor and gas emissions from animal facilities. ASAE Applied Engineering in

Agriculture &@, >;3'>;@.


32/32

ISAH 2003, Mexico

______________________________

18 JacobsonUSA

Documents

Transcript of 18 JacobsonUSA