Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T15:06:24.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Floor slat openings impact ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions associated with group-housed gestating sows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2016

F. X. Philippe ,
M. Laitat ,
J. Wavreille ,
B. Nicks  and
J. F. Cabaraux
F. X. Philippe
Affiliation:
Fundamental and Applied Research on Animal and Health Centre (FARAH), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, 4000, Liège, Belgium
M. Laitat
Affiliation:
Fundamental and Applied Research on Animal and Health Centre (FARAH), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, 4000, Liège, Belgium
J. Wavreille
Affiliation:
Walloon Agricultural Research Centre, 5030, Gembloux, Belgium
B. Nicks
Affiliation:
Fundamental and Applied Research on Animal and Health Centre (FARAH), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, 4000, Liège, Belgium
J. F. Cabaraux*
Affiliation:
Fundamental and Applied Research on Animal and Health Centre (FARAH), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, 4000, Liège, Belgium
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

According to EU legislation, group-housed gestating sows must have a minimum of 2.25 m2 floor area per sow with at least 1.3 m2 of continuous solid floor of which a maximum of 15% is reserved for drainage openings. The aim of the experiment was to quantify the impact of different drainage openings on ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions. Three successive batches of 10 gestating sows were used. Each batch was divided into two groups kept separately in two identical rooms with similar volume and surface. The solid part of the floor presented 15% drainage openings in the first room and 2.5% in the second room. The gas emissions (ammonia (NH3), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapour (H2O)) were measured three times during 6 consecutive days. Gaseous emissions were significantly lower with 15% drainage openings with reductions of 19% for NH3 (12.77 v. 15.83 g/day per sow), 15% for CH4 (10.15 v. 11.91 g/day per sow), 10% for N2O (0.47 v. 0.52 g/day per sow), 9% for CO2 (2.41 v. 2.66 kg/day per sow) and 13% for H2O (3.25 v. 3.75 kg/day per sow). This trial showed the advantage, in an environmental point of view, to use 15% drainage openings on the solid part of partly slatted floors in pens for group-housed gestating sows.

Keywords

ammoniaslatted floorgestating sowgreenhouse gasesdrainage openings
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 12 , December 2016 , pp. 2027 - 2033
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aarnink, AJA, Schrama, JW, Heetkamp, MJW, Stefanowska, J and Huynh, TTT 2006. Temperature and body weight affect fouling of pig pens. Journal of Animal Science 84, 2224–2231.Google Scholar
Cabaraux, JF, Philippe, FX, Laitat, M, Canart, B, Vandenheede, M and Nicks, B 2009. Gaseous emissions from weaned pigs raised on different floor systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 130, 86–92.Google Scholar
CIGR 1984. Climatization of animal houses. Scottish Farm Buildings Investigation Unit, Aberdeen, UK.Google Scholar
CIGR 2002. 4th Report of working group on climatization of animal houses. Heat and moisture production at animal and house levels (ed. S Pedersen and K Sallvik), p. 45. Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Horsens, Denmark.Google Scholar
Costa, A and Guarino, M 2009. Definition of yearly emission factor of dust and greenhouse gases through continuous measurements in swine husbandry. Atmospheric Environment 43, 1548–1556.Google Scholar
Dong, H, Zhu, Z, Shang, B, Kang, G, Zhu, H and Xin, H 2007. Greenhouse gas emissions from swine barns of various production stages in suburban Beijing, China. Atmospheric Environment 41, 2391–2399.Google Scholar
Dourmad, JY, Etienne, M and Noblet, J 2001. Mesurer l’épaisseur de lard dorsal des truies pour définir leurs programmes alimentaires. INRA Productions Animales 14, 41–50.Google Scholar
European Commission 2003. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) – Reference document on best available techniques for intensive rearing of poultry and pigs. European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
Groot Koerkamp, PWG, Metz, JHM, Uenk, GH, Phillips, VR, Holden, MR, Sneath, RW, Short, JL, White, RP, Hartung, J, Seedorf, J, Schroder, M, Linkert, KH, Pedersen, S, Takai, H, Johnsen, JO and Wathes, CM 1998. Concentrations and emissions of ammonia in livestock buildings in Northern Europe. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 70, 79–95.Google Scholar
Guingand, N and Courboulay, V 2007. Reduction of the number of slots for concrete slatted floor in fattening buildings: consequences for pig and environment. In Ammonia emissions in agriculture (ed. G Monteny and E Hartung), pp. 147–148. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Guingand, N and Granier, R 2001. Experiment to study the effects of a partially or totally slatted floor during the growing/finishing period on growth performance and ammonia emissions. Journées de la Recherche Porcine, Paris, France, pp. 31–33.Google Scholar
Guingand, N, Quiniou, N and Courboulay, V 2010. Comparison of ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions from fattening pigs kept either on partially slatted floor in cold conditions or on fully slatted floor in thermoneutral conditions. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE), Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
INRA-AFZ 2004. Tables de composition et de valeur nutritive des matières premières destinées aux animaux d’élevage. INRA Editions, Paris, France.Google Scholar
IPCC 2006 2006. IPCC Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Volume 4: agriculture, forestry and other land use. Prepared by the national greenhouse gas inventories programme. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama, Japan.Google Scholar
IPCC 2007. Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Pedersen, S, Blanes-Vidal, V, Jørgensen, H, Chwalibog, A, Haeussermann, A, Heetkamp, MJW and Aarnink, AJA 2008. Carbon dioxide production in animal houses: a literature review. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal X, 19.Google Scholar
Philippe, FX, Cabaraux, J-F and Nicks, B 2011a. Ammonia emissions from pig houses: influencing factors and mitigation techniques. Agriculture, Ecosystems and; Environment 141, 245–260.Google Scholar
Philippe, FX, Canart, B, Laitat, M, Wavreille, J, Bartiaux-Thill, N, Nicks, B and Cabaraux, JF 2010. Effects of available surface on gaseous emissions from group-housed gestating sows kept on deep litter. Animal 4, 1716–1724.Google Scholar
Philippe, FX, Canart, B, Laitat, M, Wavreille, J, Vandenheede, M, Bartiaux-Thill, N, Nicks, B and Cabaraux, JF 2009. Gaseous emissions from group-housed gestating sows kept on deep litter and offered an ad libitum high-fibre diet. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 132, 66–73.Google Scholar
Philippe, FX, Laitat, M, Canart, B, Vandenheede, M and Nicks, B 2007. Comparison of ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions during the fattening of pigs, kept either on fully slatted floor or on deep litter. Livestock Science 111, 144–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philippe, FX, Laitat, M, Wavreille, J, Bartiaux-Thill, N, Nicks, B and Cabaraux, JF 2011b. Ammonia and greenhouse gas emission from group-housed gestating sows depends on floor type. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 140, 498–505.Google Scholar
Philippe, FX, Laitat, M, Wavreille, J, Nicks, B and Cabaraux, JF 2013. Influence of permanent use of feeding stalls as living area on ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions for group-housed gestating sows kept on straw deep-litter. Livestock Science 155, 397–406.Google Scholar
Philippe, FX, Laitat, M, Wavreille, J, Nicks, B and Cabaraux, J-F 2015. Effects of a high-fibre diet on ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions from gestating sows and fattening pigs. Atmospheric Environment 109, 197–204.Google Scholar
Philippe, FX and Nicks, B 2015. Review on greenhouse gas emissions from pig houses: Production of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide by animals and manure. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 199, 10–25.Google Scholar
Philippe, FX, Remience, V, Dourmad, JY, Cabaraux, JF, Vandenheede, M and Nicks, B 2008. Les fibres dans l’alimentation des truies gestantes: effets sur la nutrition, le comportement, les performances et les rejets dans l’environnement. INRA Productions Animales 21, 277–290.Google Scholar
SAS 2005. SAS/STAT user’s guide, version, 9.1. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Schulten, SM 1998a. Manure and derivatives – determination of the contents of dry matter and organic matter – Gravimetric method (NEN 7432). Dutch Standardization Institute (NNI), Delft, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Schulten, SM 1998b. Manure and derivatives – determination of the total nitrogen content (NEN 7437). Dutch Standardization Institute (NNI), Delft, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Sun, G, Guo, H, Peterson, J, Predicala, B and Laguë, C 2008. Diurnal Odor, Ammonia, Hydrogen Sulfide, and Carbon Dioxide emission profiles of confined swine grower/finisher rooms. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 58, 1434–1448.Google Scholar
Veeken, A, de Wilde, V and Hamelers, B 2002. Passively aerated composting of straw-rich pig manure: effect of compost bed porosity. Compost Science & Utilization 10, 114–128.Google Scholar
Ye, Z, Zhang, G, Seo, IH, Kai, P, Saha, CK, Wang, C and Li, B 2009. Airflow characteristics at the surface of manure in a storage pit affected by ventilation rate, floor slat opening, and headspace height. Biosystems Engineering 104, 97–105.Google Scholar