Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T12:32:58.156Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2010

F. X. Philippe ,
B. Canart ,
M. Laitat ,
J. Wavreille ,
N. Bartiaux-Thill ,
B. Nicks  and
J. F. Cabaraux
F. X. Philippe
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Productions, Bât. B43, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, 4000, Liège, Belgium
B. Canart
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Productions, Bât. B43, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, 4000, Liège, Belgium
M. Laitat
Affiliation:
Department of Production Animals Clinic, Bât. B42, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, 4000, Liège, Belgium
J. Wavreille
Affiliation:
Production and Sectors Department, Walloon Agricultural Research Centre, 5030, Gembloux, Belgium
N. Bartiaux-Thill
Affiliation:
Production and Sectors Department, Walloon Agricultural Research Centre, 5030, Gembloux, Belgium
B. Nicks
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Productions, Bât. B43, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, 4000, Liège, Belgium
J. F. Cabaraux*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Productions, Bât. B43, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, 4000, Liège, Belgium
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

In the European Union, the group-housed pregnant sows have to have a minimal legal available area of 2.25 m2/sow. However, it has been observed that an increased space allowance reduces agonistic behaviour and consecutive wounds and thus induces better welfare conditions. But, what about the environmental impacts of this greater available area? Therefore, the aim of this study was to quantify pollutant gases emissions (nitrous oxide, N2O, methane, CH4, carbon dioxide, CO2 and ammonia, NH3), according to the space allowance in the raising of gestating sows group-housed on a straw-based deep litter. Four successive batches of 10 gestating sows were each divided into two homogeneous groups and randomly allocated to a treatment: 2.5 v. 3.0 m2/sow. The groups were separately kept in two identical rooms. A restricted conventional cereals based diet was provided once a day in individual feeding stalls available only during the feeding time. Rooms were automatically ventilated. The gas emissions were measured by infra red photoacoustic detection during six consecutive days at the 6th, 9th and 12th weeks of gestation. Sows performance (body weight gain, backfat thickness, number and weight of piglets) was not significantly different according to the space allowance. In the room with 3.0 m2/sow and compared with the room with 2.5 m2/sow, gaseous emissions were significantly greater for NH3 (6.29 v. 5.37 g NH3-N/day per sow; P < 0.01) and significantly lower for N2O (1.78 v. 2.48 g N2O-N/day per sow; P < 0.01), CH4 (10.15 v. 15.21 g/day per sow; P < 0.001), CO2 equivalents (1.11 v. 1.55 kg/day per sow; P < 0.001), CO2 (2.12 v. 2.41 kg/day per sow; P < 0.001) and H2O (3.10 v. 3.68 kg/day per sow; P < 0.001). In conclusion, an increase of the available area for group-housed gestating sow kept on straw-based deep litter seems to be ambiguous on an environmental impacts point of view. Compared with a conventional and legal available area, it favoured NH3 emissions, probably due to an increased emitting surface. However, about greenhouse gases, it decreased N2O, CH4 and CO2 emissions, probably due to reduced anaerobic conditions required for their synthesis, and led to a reduction of CO2 equivalents emissions.

Keywords

ammoniaavailable surfacedeep littergestating sowgreenhouse gases
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 4 , Issue 10 , October 2010 , pp. 1716 - 1724
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2010

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

Banhazi, TM, Seedorf, J, Rutley, DL, Pitchford, WS 2008. Identification of risk factors for sub-optimal housing conditions in Australian piggeries: Part 2. Airborne pollutants. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health 14, 21–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Basset-Mens, C, van der Werf, HMG, Robin, P, Morvan, T, Hassouna, M, Paillat, JM, Vertes, F 2007. Methods and data for the environmental inventory of contrasting pig production systems. Journal of Cleaner Production 15, 1395–1405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanes, V, Pedersen, S 2005. Ventilation flow in pig houses measured and calculated by carbon dioxide, moisture and heat balance equations. Biosystems Engineering 92, 483–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabaraux, J-F, Philippe, F-X, Laitat, M, Canart, B, Vandenheede, M, Nicks, B 2009. Gaseous emissions from weaned pigs raised on different floor systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 130, 86–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Commission of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering (CIGR) 2002. Climatization of animal houses, heat and moisture production at animal and house levels. 4th report of working group at the International Commission of Agricultural Engineering, Section II. Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Horsens, Denmark.Google Scholar
Dong, H, Zhu, Z, Shang, B, Kang, G, Zhu, H, Xin, H 2007. Greenhouse gas emissions from swine barns of various production stages in suburban Beijing, China. Atmospheric Environment 41, 2391–2399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dore, CJ, Jones, BMR, Scholtens, R, Huis In’t Veld, JWH, Burgess, LR, Phillips, VR 2004. Measuring ammonia emission rates from livestock buildings and manure stores – part 2: comparative demonstrations of three methods on the farm. Atmospheric Environment 38, 3017–3024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guingand, N 2007. Réduire la densité animale en engraissement quelles conséquences sur l’émission d’odeurs et d’ammoniac? Journées de la Recherche Porcine, Paris, France 39, 43–48.Google Scholar
Godbout, S, Lague, C, Lemay, SP, Marquis, A, Fonstad, TA 2003. Greenhouse gas and odour emissions from swine operations under liquid manure management in Canada. In Proceedings of the international Symposium on Gaseous and Odour Emissions from Animal Production Facilities (ed. CIGR), pp. 426–443. Danish Institute for Agricultural Sciences, Foulum, Denmark.Google Scholar
Groenestein, CM, Hendriks, M, den Hartog, LA 2003. Effect of feeding schedule on ammonia emission from individual and group-housing systems for sows. Biosystems Engineering 85, 79–85.CrossRefGoogle 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, Wathes, CM 1998. Concentrations and emissions of ammonia in livestock buildings in Northern Europe. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 70, 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groot Koerkamp, PWG, Uenk, GH 1997. Climatic conditions and aerial pollutants in and emissions from commercial animal production systems in the Netherlands. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ammonia and Odour Control from Animal Production Facilities (ed. JAM Voermans and GJ Monteny), pp. 139–144. Dutch Society of Agricultural Engineering, Rosmalen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Haeussermann, A, Hartung, E, Gallmann, E, Jungbluth, T 2006. Influence of season, ventilation strategy, and slurry removal on methane emissions from pig houses. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 112, 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, LA, Sharpe, RR, Simmons, JD 2004. Ammonia emissions from swine houses in the southeastern United States. Journal of Environmental Quality 33, 449–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hellmann, B, Zelles, L, Palojarvi, A, Bai, QY 1997. Emission of climate-relevant trace gases and succession of microbial communities during open-window composting. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 63, 1011–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2006. 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Vol. 4, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, Japan.Google Scholar
IPCC 2007. Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the 4th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Jeppsson, KH 2000. SE – structures and environment: carbon dioxide emission and water evaporation from deep litter systems. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 77, 429–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeppsson, KH 2002. SE – structures and environment: diurnal variation in ammonia, carbon dioxide and water vapour emission from an uninsulated, deep litter building for growing/finishing pigs. Biosystems Engineering 81, 213–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kermarrec, C, Robin, P 2002. Nitrogenous gas emissions during the rearing of pigs on sawdust litter. Journées de la Recherche Porcine, Paris, France 34, 155–160.Google Scholar
Massabie, P, Ramonet, Y 2007. Piggery buildings in France: current situation. Techni-Porc 30, 5–11.Google Scholar
Misselbrook, TH, Van der Weerden, TJ, Pain, BF, Jarvis, SC, Chambers, BJ, Smith, KA, Phillips, VR, Demmers, TGM 2000. Ammonia emission factors for UK agriculture. Atmospheric Environment 34, 871–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ni, JQ, Vinckier, C, Hendriks, J, Coenegrachts, J 1999. Production of carbon dioxide in a fattening pig house under field conditions. II. Release from the manure. Atmospheric Environment 33, 3697–3703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olesen, CS, Jorgensen, H, Danielsen, V 2001. Effect of dietary fibre on digestibility and energy metabolism in pregnant sows. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A – Animal Science 51, 200–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, S, Blanes-Vidal, V, Joergensen, H, Chwalibog, A, Haeussermann, A, Heetkamp, MJW, Aarnink, AJA 2008. Carbon dioxide production in animal houses: a literature review. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Ejournal. Manuscript BC 08 008, Vol. X.Google Scholar
Philippe, FX, Laitat, M, Canart, B, Farnir, F, Massart, L, Vandenheede, M, Nicks, B 2006. Effects of a reduction of diet crude protein content on gaseous emissions from deep-litter pens for fattening pigs. Animal Research 55, 397–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philippe, FX, Laitat, M, Canart, B, Vandenheede, M, Nicks, B 2007a. 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, Canart, B, Vandenheede, M, Nicks, B 2007b. Gaseous emissions during the fattening of pigs kept either on fully slatted floors or on straw flow. Animal 1, 1515–1523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Philippe, FX, Remience, V, Dourmad, JY, Cabaraux, JF, Vandenheede, M, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philippe, FX, Canart, B, Laitat, M, Wavreille, J, Vandenheede, M, Bartiaux-Thill, N, Nicks, B, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poth, M, Focht, DD 1985. 15N kinetic-analysis of N2O production by nitrosomonas-europaea – an examination of nitrifier denitrification. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 49, 1134–1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reidy, B, Webb, J, Misselbrook, TH, Menzi, H, Luesink, HH, Hutchings, NJ, Eurich-Menden, B, Doher, H, Dammgen, U 2009. Comparison of models used for national agricultural ammonia emission inventories in Europe: litter-based manure systems. Atmospheric Environment 43, 1632–1640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remience, V, Wavreille, J, Canart, B, Meunier-Salaün, M-C, Prunier, A, Bartiaux-Thill, N, Nicks, B, Vandenheede, M 2008. Effects of space allowance on the welfare of dry sows kept in dynamic groups and fed with an electronic sow feeder. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 112, 284–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rijnen, MMJA, Verstegen, MWA, Heetkamp, MJW, Haaksma, J, Schrama, JW 2001. Effects of dietary fermentable carbohydrates on energy metabolism in group-housed sows. Journal of Animal Science 79, 148–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Theil, PK, Jorgensen, H, Jakobsen, K 2002. Energy and protein metabolism in pregnant sows fed two levels of dietary protein. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 86, 399–413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salak-Johnson, JL, Niekamp, SR, Rodriguez-Zas, SL, Ellis, M, Curtis, SE 2007. Space allowance for dry, pregnant sows in pens: Body condition, skin lesions, and performance. Journal of Animal Science 85, 1758–1769.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SAS 2005. SAS/STAT user’s guide, version, 9.1. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Caroline, USA.Google Scholar
Sauvant, D, Perez, JM, Tran, G 2004. Tables of composition and nutritional value of feed materials: pigs, poultry, cattle, sheep, goats, rabbits, horses and fish. Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veeken, A, de Wilde, V, Hamelers, B 2002. Passively aerated composting of straw-rich pig manure: Effect of compost bed porosity. Compost Science & Utilization 10, 114–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamulki, S 2006. Effect of straw addition on nitrous oxide and methane emissions from stored farmyard manures. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 112, 140–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar