Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T05:57:49.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gaseous emissions during the fattening of pigs kept either on fully slatted floors or on straw flow

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2007

F.-X. Philippe ,
M. Laitat ,
B. Canart ,
M. Vandenheede  and
B. Nicks
F.-X. Philippe*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Productions, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, Boulevard de Colonster, 20-Bât. B43, 4000 Liège, Belgium
M. Laitat
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, Boulevard de Colonster, 20-Bât. B43, 4000 Liège, Belgium
B. Canart
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Productions, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, Boulevard de Colonster, 20-Bât. B43, 4000 Liège, Belgium
M. Vandenheede
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Productions, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, Boulevard de Colonster, 20-Bât. B43, 4000 Liège, Belgium
B. Nicks
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Productions, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, Boulevard de Colonster, 20-Bât. B43, 4000 Liège, Belgium
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the environmental impact of the straw-flow system for fattening pigs with the slatted-floor system by measuring pollutant gas emissions such as ammonia (NH3), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2), manure nitrogen (N) content and emissions of water vapour (H2O). Three successive batches of 32 pigs were fattened. For each batch, pigs were allotted to two groups raised in separated rooms fitted either with a concrete totally slatted-floor system (0.75 m2 per pig) or with a straw-flow system (0.79 m2 per pig). With this last system, pigs were kept on a sloped floor, straw being provided daily at the top of the pen. Throughout the fattening period, about 34.4 kg of straw were supplied per pig. The straw, mixed with dung, travelled down the slope by pig motion and went out of the pen to a scraped passage. The solid fraction was scraped every day, stored in a heap in the room and removed every month, 1 week before each period of gaseous emission measurement. The liquid fraction was automatically pumped from the scraped passage into a hermetic tank, which was emptied at the end of each fattening period. Rooms were ventilated mechanically in order to maintain a constant ambient temperature. Once a month, the emissions of NH3, N2O, CH4, CO2 and H2O were measured hourly for 6 consecutive days via infrared photoacoustic detection. Mean daily emissions per pig fattened on the slatted floor or on the sloped floor were, respectively, 4.98 and 13.31 g NH3, 0.67 and 0.68 g N2O, 15.2 and 8.88 g CH4, 548 g and 406 g CO2 equivalents, 1.61 and 1.77 kg CO2 and 2.33 and 2.95 kg H2O. Except for N2O emissions, all the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.001). From the slatted-floor system, the amount of slurry removed per fattening period was on average 256 kg per pig. From the straw-flow system, solid manure amounted on average to 209 kg per pig and liquid manure to 53 kg per pig. The total N-content of the manure was 2.23 kg N per pig with the straw-flow system (solid and liquid manure) v. 3.26 kg N per pig for slurry from the slatted-floor system. This reduction of 30% observed with the sloped floor was mainly explained by the higher level of NH3-N emissions.

Keywords

ammoniagreenhouse gasespigsslatted floorsstraw flow
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 1 , Issue 10 , November 2007 , pp. 1515 - 1523
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2007

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

Amon, B, Pöllinger, A, Kryvoruchko, V, Mösenbacher, I, Hausleitner, A, Amon, T 2005. Ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions from a straw flow system for fattening pigs. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on the FAO ESCORENA Network on Recycling of Agricultural, Municipal and Industrial Residues in Agriculture (ed. P Bernal, R Moral, R Clemente and C Paredes), pp. 273–276. FAO, Murcia, Spain.Google Scholar
Andersson, M 1996. Performance of bedding materials in affecting ammonia emissions from pig manure. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 65, 213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersson, M, Svendsen, J 2001. Pens with sloped flooring in an uninsulated growing-finishing house. Department of Agricultural Biosystems and Technology, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Alnarp, Sweden.Google Scholar
Braam, CR, Swierstra, D 1999. Volatilization of ammonia from dairy housing floors with different surface characteristics. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 72, 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, JM 1990. Straw-Flow: a high welfare system for pigs. Farm Building Progress 102, 9–13.Google Scholar
Chadwick, DR 2005. Emissions of ammonia, nitrous oxide and methane from cattle manure heaps: effect of compaction and covering. Atmospheric Environment 39, 787–799.Google Scholar
Chevrant-Breton, A, Daridan, D 2003. Conditions de développement des élevages de porcs en France. Analyse de 611 projets déposés entre 1997 et 2001. In 35èmes journées de la recherche porcine en France (ed. Institut Technique du Porc), pp. 189–195. Institut Technique du Porc, Paris, France.Google Scholar
De Oliveira, PAV, Souloumiac, D, Robin, P, Kermarrec, C 1999. Comparaison des productions de chaleurs en engraissement de porcs sur litière de sciure ou sur caillebotis intégral. Annales de Zootechnie 48, 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degré, A, Verhève, D, Debouche, C 2001. Emissions gazeuses en élevage porcin et modes de réduction: revue bibliographique. Biotechnology, Agronomy, Society and Environment 5, 135–143.Google Scholar
Elzing, A, Monteny, GJ 1997. Modelling and experimental determination of ammonia emission rates from a scale model dairy-cow house. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 40, 721–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission, 2003. IPPC. Reference document on BAT for intensive rearing poultry and pigs. Retrieved January 4, 2006, from http://www.epa.ie/Licensing/IPPCLicensing/BREFDocuments.Google Scholar
Fernandez, JA, Poulsen, HD, Boisen, S, Rom, HB 1999. Nitrogen and phosphorus consumption, utilisation and losses in pig production: Denmark. Livestock Production Science 58, 225–242.Google Scholar
Gallmann, E, Hartung, E, Jungbluth, T 2003. Long-term study regarding the emission rates of ammonia and greenhouse gases from different housing systems for fattening pigs – final results. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Gaseous and Odour Emissions from Animal Production Facilities (ed. Commission Internationale du Génie Rural), pp. 122–130. Danish Institute for Agricultural Sciences, Foulum, Denmark.Google Scholar
Gibbs, PA, Parkinson, RJ, Misselbrook, TH, Burchett, S 2002. Environmental impact of cattle manure composting. In Microbiology of composting (ed. H Insam, N Riddech and S Klammer), pp. 446–456. Springer, New York, USA.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. Commission Internationale du Génie Rural), pp. 426–443. Danish Institute for Agricultural Sciences, Foulum, Denmark.Google Scholar
Groenestein, CM, Van Faassen, 1996. Volatilization of ammonia, nitrous oxide and nitric oxide in deep-litter systems for fattening pigs. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 65, 269–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groenestein, CM, Den Hartog, LA, Metz, JHM 2006. Potential ammonia emissions from straw bedding, slurry pit and concrete floors in a group-housing system for sows. Biosystems Engineering 95, 235–243.Google 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
Groot Koerkamp, PWG, Metz, JHM, Uenk, GH, Philips, VR, Holden, MR, Sneath, RW, Short, JL, White, RP, Hartung, J, Seedorf, J, Schröder, 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
Guarino, M, Fabbri, C, Navarotto, P, Valli, L, Mascatelli, G, Rossetti, M, Mazzotta, V 2003. Ammonia, methane and nitrous oxide emissions and particulate matter concentrations in two different buildings for fattening pigs. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Gaseous and Odour Emissions from Animal Production Facilities (ed. Commission Internationale du Génie Rural), pp. 140–149. Danish Institute for Agricultural Sciences, Foulum, Denmark.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 and Environment 112, 115–121.Google Scholar
Hellmann, B, Zelles, L, Palojärvi, A, Bai, Q 1997. Emission of climate-relevant trace gases and succession of microbial communities during open-windrow composting. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 63, 1011–1018.Google Scholar
Hornig, G, Stollberg, U, Fenyvesi, L, Matyas, L 2001. Environmentally relevant emissions from modernized fattening pig houses in Hungary. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on the FAO ESCORENA Network on Recycling of Agricultural, Municipal and Industrial Residues in Agriculture (ed. F Sangiorgi), pp. 127–132. FAO, Milan, Italy.Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001. Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA.Google Scholar
International Commission of Agricultural Engineering 2002. Fourth report of working group on climatization of animal houses. Heat and moisture production at animal and house levels. Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Horsens, Denmark.Google Scholar
Jeppsson, KH 2000. Carbon dioxide emission and water evaporation from deep litter systems. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 77, 429–440.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, R 1997. Litière biomaîtrisée pour porc à l’engrais: amélioration de la technique et valorisation des données importantes pour l’environnement. In 29èmes journées de la recherche porcine en France (ed. Institut Technique du Porc), pp. 311–318. Institut Technique du Porc, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Kermarrec C, 1999. Bilan et transformations de l’azote en élevage intensif de porcs sur litière. PhD thesis, University of Rennes, France.Google Scholar
Lyons, CAP, Bruce, JM, Fowler, VR, English, PR 1995. A comparison of productivity and welfare of growing pigs in four intensive systems. Livestock Production Science 43, 265–274.Google Scholar
Monteny, GJ, Bannink, A, Chadwick, D 2006. Greenhouse gas abatement strategies for animal husbandry. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 112, 163–170.Google Scholar
Muck, RE, Steenhuis, TS 1981. Nitrogen losses in free stall dairy barns. In Livestock waste: a renewable source. In Proceeding of the Fourth International Symposium on Livestock Wastes (ed. American Society of Agricultural Engineering), pp. 406–409. American Society of Agricultural Engineering, St Joseph, Michigan, USA.Google Scholar
Ni, JQ, Hendriks, J, Coenegrachts, J, Vinckier, C 1999a. Production of carbon dioxide in a fattening pig house under field conditions. I: Exhalation by pigs. Atmospheric Environment 33, 3691–3696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ni, JQ, Vinckier, C, Hendriks, J, Coenegrachts, J 1999b. Production of carbon dioxide in a fattening pig house under field conditions. II: Release from the manure. Atmospheric Environment 33, 3697–3703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, FA, Williams, JR, Chambers, BJ 2000. Ammonia losses from straw and slurry based manure management systems. In Air pollution from agricultural operations. Proceedings of the Second International Conference (ed. American Society of Agricultural Engineers), pp. 18–24. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Des Moines, Iowa, USA.Google Scholar
Nicks B 2004a. Aspects environnementaux et zootechniques de l’élevage de porcs charcutiers et de porcelets sevrés sur litières accumulées de paille ou de sciure. PhD thesis, University of Liège, Belgium.Google Scholar
Nicks, B 2004b. Caractéristiques techniques et aspects environnementaux de l’élevage de porcs charcutiers et de porcelets sevrés sur litières accumulées. Annales de Médecine Vétérinaire 148, 31–38.Google Scholar
Nicks, B, Marlier, D, Canart, B 1994. Comparaison des températures de litières et des niveaux de pollution de l’air lors d’engraissement de porcs sur litières biomaîtrisées à base de sciure ou de paille hachée. In 26èmes journées de la recherche porcine en France (ed. Institut Technique du Porc), pp. 85–90. Institut Technique du Porc, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Nicks, B, Laitat, M, Farnir, F, Vandenheede, M, Désiron, A, Verhaeghe, C, Canart, B 2004. Gaseous emissions from deep-litter pens with straw or sawdust for fattening pigs. Animal Science 78, 99–107.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
Ramonet, Y, Dappello, C 2003. L’élevage des porcs sur litière: une diversité de systèmes en engraissement. In 35èmes journées de la recherche porcine en France (ed. Institut Technique du Porc), pp. 1–6. Institut Technique du Porc, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Robin, P, De Oliveira, PA, Souloumiac, D, Kermarrec, C, Dourmad, JY 1998. Effect of housing system, litter Versus totally slatted floor, on mass balances of water, nitrogen, and phosphorus in growing-finishing pigs. In Report of the eighth international conference of the European cooperative research network on recycling of agricultural municipal and industrial residuals in agriculture (ed. J Martinez and MN Maudet), pp. 71–77. FAO, Rennes, France.Google Scholar
Robin, P, De Oliveira, PA, Kermarrec, C 1999. Productions d’ammoniac, de protoxyde d’azote et d’eau par différentes litières de porcs durant la phase de croissance. In 31èmes journées de la recherche porcine en France (ed. Institut Technique du Porc), pp. 111–115. Institut Technique du Porc, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Sommer, SG, Møller, HB 2000. Emission of greenhouse gases during composting of deep litter from pig production – effect of straw content. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 134, 327–335.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute 1999. SAS/STAT user’s guide: statistics (version 8). SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Texier, C 1997. Elevage porcin et environnement. Institut Technique du Porc, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Tuyttens, FAM 2005. The importance of straw for pig and cattle welfare: a review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92, 261–282.Google Scholar
Urbain B, 1997. Toxicité de l’ammoniac pour l’appareil respiratoire du porc. PhD thesis, University of Liège, Belgium.Google Scholar
Veeken, A, De Wilde, V, Hamelers, B 2002. Passively aerated composting of straw-rich pig manure: effect of compost bed porosity. Compost Science and Utilization 10, 114–128.Google Scholar