State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
United States EPA/600/R-02/0 17
Environmental ProtectionD
Agency April 2002 D
vvEPA Research and
Development
REVIEW OF EMISSION FACTORS AND
METHODOLOGIES TO ESTIMATE
AMMONIA EMISSIONS FROM ANIMAL
WASTE HANDLING
Prepared forn
Office of Air and Radiation
Prepared by
National Risk Managementn
Research Laboratory n
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 n
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with
protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national
environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to
a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to
support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is providing
data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a
science knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely,
understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks
in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's
center for investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing
and reducing risks from pollution that threaten human health and the environment. The
focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness
for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources,
protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites,
sediments and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and
restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector
partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate
emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environmental problems
by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment;
advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy
decisions; and providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure
implementation of environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and
community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic
long-term research plan. It is published and made available by EPA's Office of
Research and Development to assist the user community and to link researchers with
their clients.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director^
National Risk Management Research Laboratory D
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been peer and administratively reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA/600/R-02/017
April 2002
REVIEW OF EMISSION FACTORS AND METHODOLOGIES TO
ESTIMATE AMMONIA EMISSIONS FROM ANIMAL WASTE HANDLING
Michiel R.J. Doom and David F. NatschkeD
ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 D
and Pieter C. MeeuwissenD
ARCADIS, Arnhem, The Netherlands D
EPA Contract No. 68-C-99-201
Work Assignment No. 0-004
Project Officer: D
Susan A. ThorneloeD
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency D
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division D
National Risk Management Research Laboratory D
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711D
Prepared for: D
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency D
Office of Research and Development D
Washington, DC 20460 D
andD
State of North Carolina D
Division of Air Quality D
Department of Environment and Natural Resources D
Raleigh, NC 27699 D
-------
ABSTRACT
Currently, approximately 80% of ammonia (NH3) emissions in the United States (U.S.) originate from
livestock waste. This report summarizes and discusses recent available U.S. and European information on
NH3 emissions from swine farms and assesses the applicability for general use in the U.S., and North
Carolina in particular. In addition, limited information on NH3 emissions from other farm animals is
included, as well as some information on methane emissions from anaerobic animal waste lagoons and
nitrous oxide emissions from swine waste spray fields. The report discusses a comprehensive mass balance
approach that may be used to estimate emissions for certain livestock and poultry operations.
The emission rates for the houses calculated by various methods show good agreement and suggest that the
houses are a more significant source than previously thought. It is believed that there is enough basis to
recommend a general emission factor for houses of 3.7 ± 1.0 kg NH3/year/fmisher pig or 59 ± 10 g NH3/kg
live weight/year. This value is supported by the 4.3 kg NH3/year/fmisher pig reported for several pull-plug
houses which were tested in the summer of 2000. For lagoons, it was found that there is good similarity
between the field test results and the number calculated by a mass balance method. The suggested annual
NH3 emission factor based on field tests at one swine farm lagoon in North Carolina is 2.4 kg/year/pig. The
emission factor for lagoons is based on field tests at only one lagoon and is considered to be less accurate
than the emission factor for houses. Emission rates from spray fields were estimated using a total mass
balance approach, while subtracting the house and lagoon emissions.
The total emission rates for finishing pigs at the test farm compared well to the total rate established by a
mass balance approach based on nitrogen intake and volatilization. Therefore, it was concluded that a mass
balance approach can be helpful in estimating NH3 emissions from swine farms. Assuming that the swine
population at the test farm was a self-sustaining population, similar to the average swine population in North
Carolina, a general emission factor of 7 kg NH3/pig/year was developed. This emission factor is comparable
to three general European emission factors, which varied from 5 to 6 kg NH3/pig/year.
-------
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT iiD
TABLES vD
FIGURES vD
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS viD
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS viiD
1 INTRODUCTION ID
1.1 Purpose of This Report 2D
1.2 Background Information on Ammonia and Ammonia Emissions from Animal Waste 3D
2 REVIEW OF EUROPEAN AND GENERAL NORTH AMERICAN LITERATURE 8 D
2.1 Chronological Synopsis of Ammonia Emissions Research 8D
2.1.1 Dutch and Danish Information 11D
2.2 Emissions from Houses 13 D
2.2.1 Mechanisms Governing Potential Ammonia Emissions Reductions from Swine Houses 16D
2.3 Regional and Global Methodologies 21D
3 FIELD TESTS IN NORTH CAROLINA 24D
3.1 Emissions from Houses 25 D
3.2 Emissions from Lagoons 27D
4 MASS BALANCE METHODOLOGY 29D
4.1 Dutch Methodology 29D
4.1.1 Nitrogen Content 31D
4.1.2 Emissions from Houses 32D
4.1.3 Emissions from Swine Waste Storage 34D
4.1.4 Emissions from Waste Application 36D
4.1.5 Limitations to Mass Balance Approach 37D
5 COMPARISON AND DISCUSSION 40D
5.1 Mass Balance Application 40D
5.1.1 Simple Total Mass Balance 40D
5.1.2 Mass Balance Based on Dutch Model 41D
5.2 Emissions from Houses 43 D
5.3 Emissions from Lagoons 44D
5.4 Emissions from Spray Fields 44D
5.5 Discussion 45 D
5.6 Recommendations for Further Research 48D
6 REFERENCES 51D
in
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
APPENDIX A: GENERAL ANIMAL FARMING AND ANIMAL WASTE MANAGEMENTD
PRACTICES IN THE U.S 55D
APPENDIX B: NITROUS OXIDE AND METHANE EMISSIONS FROM ANIMAL WASTED
MANAGEMENT 62D
APPENDIX C: COMPARISON OF FIELD TEST METHODS TO MEASURE AIR EMISSIONS FROMD
SWINE LAGOONS 69D
IV
-------
TABLESD
1: D Ammonia Emissions for Different Livestock and Housing Systems in England, The Netherlands, D
Denmark, and Germany (live weight based) 15 D
2: D Ammonia Emissions for Different Livestock and Housing Systems in England, The Netherlands, D
Denmark, and Germany (animal based) 16D
3: Correlation Between Ammonia Volatilization and Temperature Inside Dairy House 17 D
4: Ammonia Emission Factors for a Belgian Swine House 19D
5: Relationship Between Ammonia Emissions and Waste Collection Area 19D
6: D Default Nitrogen Excretion and Ammonia Volatilization Rates for Dairy, and Beef Cattle, D
Swine, and Poultry 21D
7: Comparison in the Literature of Ammonia Emission Factors for Cattle, Swine, and Poultry 23 D
8: D Results from Ammonia Emissions Field Tests at Lagoons at Two North CarolinaD
Swine Farms 28 D
9: D Dutch Volatilization Percentages, Nitrogen Excretion and Ammonia Emission Factors for Cows, D
Swine, and Poultry in Different Housing Types 33 D
10: Standard Emission Factors for Open Storage Basins in The Netherlands 35 D
11: D Calculated and Measured Ammonia Volatilization Percentages During Land Application of D
Manure in Western Europe 37 D
12: Total Nitrogen Content of Waste Production at Farm 10 (as NH3-N) 41D
13: Ammonia Emission Rates for Finisher Houses atFarm 10 43D
14: Ammonia Emission Rates for the Lagoon at Farm 10 44D
15: Summary of Farm 10 Ammonia Emission Rates 46D
16: Comparison of Ammonia Emission Factors for Swine 48D
FIGURES
1: Likely Pathways for Animal Waste Ammonia Emissions to the Atmosphere 5D
2: Relationship Between Ammonia Emissions and Ambient Temperature in a Dairy House 18 D
3: European Union Ammonia Emission Factors 22 D
4: Nitrogen Flows in Dutch and North Carolina Systems 39 D
vD
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
North Carolina has several concerns regarding the Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).
However, in the decade of the 1990s, the State's hog production increased dramatically from about 2 million
to about 10 million per year, causing great concerns. The NC Division of Air Quality recognized the
uncertainties involved in the estimation and modeling of ammonia from these operations and undertook
several projects to try to enhance knowledge in this area. One of these was to request the assistance from
EPA's Office of Research and Development to help determine if the available emissions factors were
adequate and reasonable for application to North Carolina conditions. An Interagency Agreement (RW-
NC-93 8497-01) was formed to provide assistance in improving our understanding of emissions resulting
from CAFOs with emphasis on swine production. Through this effort, a review of available data and
information was conducted, major data gaps identified, and sampling conducted to help minimize
uncertainties regarding existing emission factors. This field test work was a major effort involving a number
of researchers and swine farms. The findings are provided in this report.
We would like to thank all of those who participated in providing data and information, access to sites, and
review of interim drafts of this report. In particular, we would like to acknowledge the contributions of: W.
Asman (National Environmental Research Institute, Roskilde, Denmark), D. Butler (representative of the
North Carolina swine industry), W. Cure, R. McCulloch, J. Southerland, G. Murray (North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources), B. Harris, R. Rosensteel, S. Thorneloe, J. Walker
(USEPA), J. Hatfield (USDA), and S. Whalen (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill).
VI
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AAP Average animal presentD
APPCD USEPA's Office of Research and Development, Air Pollution Prevention and Control D
Division
°C degrees Celsius
cm centimeter
g gram
Gg gigagram (109 grams)
kg kilogram
kW kilowatt
mg milligram (10~3 grams)
m2 square meter
N nitrogen
NCDENR North Carolina Division of Environment and Natural Resources
NH3 ammonia
NH4+ ammonium D
OP-FTIR open-path Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy D
pH minus logarithm of hydrogen ion concentration D
Tg teragram (1012 grams) D
TKN Total Kjeldahl NitrogenD
U.S. United StatesD
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture D
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency D
vn
-------
1 INTRODUCTION
In the United States (U.S.) the atmospheric deposition of ammonia (NH3) and other nitrogen compounds has
received renewed attention as a major route of entry into watersheds, especially the lower river basins and
coastal estuaries of the eastern U.S. These nitrogen compounds, particularly the reduced forms such as NH3,
are available as plant nutrients and add to the eutrophication problems already of concern in these coastal
areas (USEPA, 1997). Atmospheric NH3 further contributes to the formation of fine particulate matter
(aerosols) by reacting with acid gases from combustion sources (Harris, 2001; Aneja et al., 2000).
Animal waste management is the biggest source of NH3 emissions.1 A report by Battye et al. (1994)
concluded that about 80% of NH3 emissions in the U.S. originates from livestock waste. Also according to
Atmospheric Emission Inventory Guidebook (AEIG, 1998) of the European Environment Agency, over 80%
of total NH3 emissions in Europe originate from animal husbandry. On a global scale, the fraction of NH3
from domestic animals was estimated to be about 50%. The difference results from alternate waste
management techniques and from the nitrogen-rich diet that is fed to domestic animals in Europe and other
countries with industrialized livestock and poultry operations (Bouwman et al., 1997; Schlesinger and
Hartley, 1992).
As in northern Europe, an increasing tendency towards industrialization of farming practices in the U.S. over
the last decade and a half has resulted in increased farm size and confinement of animals. Certain
geographic shifts have further intensified potential environmental effects from NH3. For example, in the last
6 years, Eastern North Carolina, a sparsely populated agricultural region characterized by sandy soils and flat
terrain, has been the scene of explosive growth in intensive livestock production facilities, principally swine2
and poultry. In 1991, the average swine population was about 4.5 million. By 1995, the number had
increased to 8.2 million, to reach about 10 million in 1997. Due to a moratorium imposed by the Legislature
of North Carolina in 1997, the swine population has remained at around 10 million. (Note that these
numbers reflect populations at a given time. Annual production numbers are about twice as high, because it
takes half a year to raise swine up to market weight.) Swine facilities in North Carolina have primarily
1 In this report, emissions are understood as air emissions, unless otherwise indicated.
2 Hogs and pigs constitute the majority of the swine family, which also includes wild boars. Pigs are young swine;
whereas, hogs are fully grown swine. Farrows are piglets. Sows are female hogs. The terms hog, pig, and swine
are often used interchangeably.
ID
-------
located in the watersheds of the coastal plain, with the highest concentrations in the Neuse and Cape Fear
watersheds.
Poultry production in North Carolina has also increased over the last two decades, the two most important D
categories being broilers and turkeys. Statewide, approximately 777 million broilers and 54 million turkeys D
were produced in 1999. Most broilers are being produced in the western and south central parts of the State,D
but most turkeys are being raised in the southeast district, where the concentration of hog farms is alsoD
highest (Sheldon, 2001).D
In a 1997 report to Congress, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A) estimated that 27% of the D
annual nitrogen concentrations in the Chesapeake Bay result from atmospheric deposition. In NorthD
Carolina's Albemarle-Pamlico Sound, the proportion was estimated at 44%. As a result of increased public D
awareness concerning NH3 and its impact on the environment, North Carolina has become a center forD
atmospheric NH3 emission and deposition research in the last few years. In 1996 the Division of Air QualityD
of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources began a program to evaluate NH3D
emissions, deposition, and subsequent environmental impacts from deposition. The primary purpose of thisD
program was to conduct modeling, but it soon became evident that a lot of emission information was needed D
before any modeling could be accomplished. During the next few years, the State coordinated a significantD
test effort to determine NH3 emission factors from swine farms. It was decided to initially focus on lagoons, D
as they were believed to be the major source of NH3. These efforts are detailed in the proceedings of two D
workshops that were held in Raleigh, North Carolina, in March 1997 (NCDENR, 1997) and in Chapel Hill inD
June 1999 (NCDENR, 1999). Field tests and field test results are summarized in Chapter 3 of this report. D
1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT D
This report summarizes and discusses recent available U.S. and European information on NH3 emissionsD
from swine farms and assesses the applicability for general use in the U.S., and North Carolina in particular. D
In addition, limited information on NH3 emissions from farm animals other than swine is included, as well as D
some information on methane emissions from anaerobic animal waste lagoons and nitrous oxide emissions D
from swine waste spray fields. The temporal cut-off is 1994, because earlier comparable information isD
assumed to have been detailed in the Battye report, which was published in 1994. Because noD
comprehensive U.S. NH3 emissions methodology was found, this report includes a detailed review of the D
most common European methodology, which is based on a mass balance approach. Furthermore, the reportD
highlights the difference between the European and the U.S. conditions (especially for North Carolina) andD
2D
-------
suggests how European information can be used to assist in developing emission factors for U.S. emissions
from houses3, waste storage, and land application. Data gaps are defined that impede the development and
application of improved emission factors in the U.S. The main focus of this report is on NH3 emissions from
swine operations, because the best and most recent available U.S. and European NH3 emissions information
is on swine farms. The report does not address deposition or control technologies or practices.
Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the NH3 issue, as well as some background information on NH3
chemistry and emissions pathways from animal waste. Further supporting information is provided in
Appendix A which addresses general farming and animal waste practices in the U.S. Chapter 2 summarizes
findings from European and general American literature pertaining to NH3 emissions, whereas Chapter 3
focuses on the field tests that were conducted in the southeastern U.S. Chapter 4 introduces a mass balance
approach based on European models, while the available emissions data are applied and compared in
Chapter 5. Appendix B provides a review of the information that was collected on methane and nitrous
oxide emissions associated with animal waste. A synopsis of field test methods that were used to sample
NH3 air emissions is included in Appendix C.
1.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON AMMONIA AND AMMONIA EMISSIONS FROM
ANIMAL WASTE
Ammonia is a compound of nitrogen and hydrogen. Chemically it is a base, and it reacts in the atmosphere
with acidic species to form ammonium (NFL^) sulfate, MV nitrate, or NFL^ chloride. Deposition of these
salts has been identified as a major cause of soil acidification in The Netherlands because oxidation of NH4+
via nitrifying bacteria releases two if ions into the soil (Aneja et al., 2000). An excess of available nitrogen
further leads to eutrophication of surface water and soil. Nitrogen is the limiting factor in many ecosystems.
If additional nitrogen is supplied, it is initially turned into rapid growth of the stem, trunk, and foliage of the
plant. Plants experiencing this growth characteristic become more susceptible to insects and fungal
infections. The root system remains small in proportion to the foliage, making the plant or tree more
sensitive to drought and frost. Furthermore, in a nitrogen-limited ecosystem that is receiving excess
nitrogen, native plants will be replaced by invasive, nitrogen-loving species, such as nettles, grasses, and
brambles (IKC/RIVM, 1995).
Ammonium ions from animal waste sources are formed as the result of the microbial breakdown of urea by
the enzyme urease. For mammals, this process starts when the urea in the voided urine comes in contact
' The barns where the animals are kept are also called houses. These terms are used interchangeably throughout the report.
3D
-------
with the enzyme urease that is present in the excreted feces. For birds, waste protein products are excreted
by the kidneys as uric acid, which can be broken down to urea. The enzyme urease is also active in the soil
where residual urea and other nitrogenous compounds are broken down. In aqueous solutions, there exists
an equilibrium between NH3 and NH^. The ratio of dissolved NH3 to total ammoniacal nitrogen (NH3 +
NH4+) in the solution increases with increasing pH and temperature. The dissolved NH3 may then volatilize
to the surrounding air (Bouwman et al, 1997).
To define NH3 emissions, the animal waste source category is usually subdivided into four sub-categories:
animal houses, waste storage, land application of the waste, and pasture use. The pasture (free range)
category is pertinent for beef and dairy cows because these may spend all or part of their lives in pasture.
Also, other minor categories, such as sheep and goats are typically kept in pasture. Per quantity of waste,
NH3 emissions from pasture will be less, compared to collected waste. The main reason is that the waste
(solids and urine) is spread out more and can, therefore, better be absorbed by the ground or by vegetation,
especially after precipitation events. Swine and poultry are typically entirely confined in houses. A modern
swine farm may have up to 10 houses with some 800 pigs per house. In the case of a chicken farm, one
house may contain up to a 100,000 chickens. Waste storage systems include lagoons, storage pits, or the
lower part of a house itself in the case of chickens. Effluent from the lagoon or manure from a storage pit or
the house is typically land applied, where it is distributed over a field. Because this study looks at confined
animal farming operations, emissions from pasture are not further discussed. Figure 1 provides an overview
of likely NH3 emission pathways from farm animal waste. Appendix A includes descriptions of general
animal farming and animal waste handling techniques in the U.S.
Ammonia emissions from farm animal waste depend on the average nitrogen content in the waste for
different animal categories and subsequent NH3 losses during housing, storage/treatment of wastes outside
the building, and application of the animal waste to the land. These three subcategories should be viewed as
one system. For example, a change in animal diet will affect emissions from excretions in the house, but
subsequently also emissions from the waste storage site (e.g., the lagoon), and ultimately those from land
application of the lagoon effluent or solids. The interdependence is illustrated further by the many factors
that have been shown to influence NH3 emissions from livestock waste.
4D
-------
N transformation
in house
/^ N input \
( to storage )
N transformation
in storage
treatment
rx
f N input
\^ to spreading J
N transformation
during and after
spreading
N transformation
in pasture
N input y
to soil )
Figure 1. Likely Pathways for Animal Waste Ammonia Emissions to the Atmosphere
(Adapted from Hutchings et al., 2001)
5D
-------
Parameters influencing NH3 emissions that relate to feed intake and excretion include:
Feed intake, typically associated with the weight and role of the animal (e.g., breeding sow, farrow,
finisher in the case of pigs) because, depending on their role, animals receive different feeds and
have different weights and nitrogen metabolisms;
Nitrogen content of the feed;
Nitrogen content of spilled feed and bedding or litter;
Division of nitrogen over urine and feces;
Frequency of urination, and urine volume and nitrogen concentration;
pH of urine and mixed manure and urine; and
The conversion factor between the nitrogen in the animal feed and the nitrogen in the products
(meat, eggs, milk) which determines the amount of nitrogen in the excreta.
Parameters influencing NH3 emissions that relate to waste management include:
The type of housing system, including ventilation, area per animal, and type of confinement
structure, type of floor;
The type of waste management including the storage and removal system within the house (e.g., pit
storage, scrapers, frequency of animal waste removal);
Additional nitrogen from spilled feed, or bedding, or litter;
Waste treatment and disposal (lagoon, slurry tank, land application, composting, etc.);
Meteorological conditions, including air temperature, air turbulence or wind speed, air humidity, and
precipitation; and
NH3 concentration, pH, and surface water temperature in lagoon.
Parameters influencing NH3 emissions from spray application fields include:
Type of waste product that is applied (fresh animal manure, lagoon effluent);
Amount applied per area;
Concentration of NH3 in the effluent;
Frequency of application;
Type of application (traveling gun, broadcast spreader, injection);
Meteorological conditions, including air temperature, air turbulence or wind speed, air humidity, and
precipitation; and
6D
-------
Soil conditions (including permeability, porosity, pH, mineral content, moisture content) and soil
vegetation cover. These factors determine the amount of nitrogen that is absorbed by the soil and
crops that may be present.
Although the roles of the parameters determining NH3 emission are well understood, there are insufficient
scientific data to quantify the processes in detail and insufficient statistical data to quantify all input variables
(Hutchings et al., 2001). As such, the model or emission factor(s) used to estimate emissions should reflect
the quantity and quality of data available. Consequently, it is important to clearly define the purpose of the
emission estimates because this will determine what type of model should be developed or used. For
example, estimates that are intended to determine NH3 emissions at the farm or regional scale can likely be
based on more detailed activity information (e.g., average nitrogen intake per animal) and will benefit from
refinement by including additional parameters from the lists above. Global and national emission estimates
must probably continue to rely on emission factors that make use of broad activity data (e.g., number of
animals). In this case, the level of detail is not likely to go beyond animal categories and some sub-
categories and possibly a few broad categories of waste management systems. Accuracy in these types of
estimates would be greatly enhanced if mortality, vacancy, and average weight are taken into account (Groot
Koerkamp, 1998).
7D
-------
2 REVIEW OF EUROPEAN AND GENERAL NORTH AMERICAN LITERATURE
2.1 CHRONOLOGICAL SYNOPSIS OF AMMONIA EMISSIONS RESEARCHED
In Europe, excessive NH3 deposition has been investigated extensively during the last 15 to 20 years, for itsD
potential role in soil acidification and eutrophication (Battye et al, 1994; IKC/RTVM, 1995). Early U.S.D
research focused on the role of NH3 in atmospheric models, because NH3 is the main alkaline constituent inD
the atmosphere. For example, in the 1980s, NH3 emissions were included in national inventories developedD
under the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP). Schlesinger and Hartley (1992) D
developed a global NH3 emission inventory using European emission factors and were among the first in the D
U.S. to focus attention on possible large-scale effects of nitrogen deposition such as nitrogen saturation andD
acidification of soils, quoting European research. D
An EPA report was published in 1994 that compiled and reviewed literature on sources of NH3 and NH3D
emission factors (Battye et al., 1994). The report concluded that most research on NH3 emissions as itD
relates to acid deposition was concentrated in The Netherlands, Great Britain, and Denmark. It was furtherD
determined that the majority of NH3 emissions in the U.S. originate from livestock waste (about 80%). D
Other than the NAPAP emission factors, which were deemed unreliable, no recent and more reliable U.S. D
emission factors were found at that time. The Battye report recommended that European animal waste NH3D
emission factors that were developed by Asman (1992) in Battye et al. (1994) also be used in the U.S. D
Asman defined 21 animal categories and sub-categories and three broad waste management categories; i.e.,D
stable and storage; spreading; and grazing. The emission factors in Asman were based on tests that wereD
conducted in The Netherlands in the late 1980s by various researchers and were developed by dividing theD
emission of a category by the number of animals in that category. The main limitations of the AsmanD
emission factors are that animal weight and climate factors (expressed in seasonal and diurnal temperature D
variation) are not taken into account (Van der Hoek, 1994). In addition, there are different animal waste D
management practices in Europe and the U.S., the main difference being that lagoons are uncommon inD
Europe. Instead, waste is stored in concrete tanks as one may still find in the U.S. Midwest. Given theD
above, it can be concluded that these Asman emission factors are not likely to be well suited for estimating D
U.S. emissions. Yet, during the late 1990s, they continued to be used in the U.S., for lack of better data. D
In the U.S., it was not until 1998/99 that substantial U.S. NH3 emissions data from field tests started toD
become available. Field tests were conducted in the mid to late 1990s at swine operations in North CarolinaD
8D
-------
and, to a lesser extent, in Georgia. Most of these field tests pertained to emissions from lagoons because
lagoons were thought to be the largest contributors to NH3 emissions compared to houses or spray fields.
Two studies were done that provide emissions data from swine houses, while a Georgia study pertains to
spray fields. Chapter 3 summarizes the results of these field tests. Another North Carolina study used
modeling to develop a rough overall NH3 emission factor for a commercial swine farm in North Carolina
(McCulloch et al., 1998). Additional work was done in the early 1980s in California, and later in Germany
and in the United Kingdom (Asman, 2001). Many other studies focus on human or veterinary health and
provide concentrations of NH3 and other pollutants inside swine houses; however, these studies typically do
not include air flow rates so no emissions could be developed.
In reviewing mainstream, international scientific literature published between 1994 and 1999 a few
European papers were found that included new field tests data on NH3 emissions. In addition, several
summary papers were found that provide reviews or NH3 emission estimates using existing emission factors
(Bouwman and Van der Hoek, 1997; Sutton et al., 1995). These and other review-type papers and the
citations therein indicate nonetheless that emission factor research was ongoing, especially in The
Netherlands and to a lesser degree in the United Kingdom and Denmark. Most of this research appeared to
be focused on measuring emissions from different animal houses. For example, a paper published in the
Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research (Groot Koerkamp et al., 1998) summarizes comprehensive
NH3 emissions field tests that were done on livestock buildings in The Netherlands, the United Kingdom,
Denmark, and Germany. None of the independent test results cited in Groot Koerkamp appear to have been
published in leading journals. Instead these studies look like doctoral theses or comparable efforts, which
are not published outside of the coordinating university or government agency and mostly appear to be
produced in the language of the country of origin. Because a relatively large portion of the European
literature discusses emission from houses, a separate section (2.2) is devoted to this topic.
The reason why little information was found is probably because the NH3 issue in Western Europe has been
evolving over a longer period of time and is, therefore, thought to have matured. For example, NH3 has been
regarded as a problem in The Netherlands for over 20 years. Methodologies to estimate emissions at the
farm or regional scale, as well as at the (multi-) national scale have been established and are widely accepted.
The Dutch have developed a comprehensive mass balance approach, which is detailed separately in Chapter
4. In Western Europe, comprehensive control mechanisms, such as manure injection, were put in place some
time ago. Any field tests that have been conducted after 1994 (the year the Battye report was published)
9D
-------
serve to refine the existing emission factors and are probably not considered interesting or novel enough for
publication.
Another reason why limited literature pertinent to the estimation of U.S. NH3 emissions from animal waste
was found is that there are distinct differences in U.S. and European waste management practices. First of
all, the use of lagoons has always been uncommon in Western Europe, due to lack of available space and
high groundwater tables (in the case of The Netherlands). Instead, manure is usually stored in concrete
basins and land-applied as a slurry. This system is comparable to older U.S. systems in the North and
Midwest. In the early 1990s in The Netherlands and probably in most of Western Europe, regulations were
issued that made covering of animal manure storage facilities mandatory. In addition, land-spraying by
traveling guns (sprinklers), as is done in the U.S., has been discouraged in Western Europe since the late
1980s in favor of manure injection or spraying techniques close to the ground followed by immediate tilling.
Once these storage and application emission sources were reduced, research focused on developing a better
understanding of the remaining source (i.e., emissions from houses), which is addressed in Section 2.2.
Two British and one Canadian paper were found that provide interpretations of existing NH3 emissions
information to assess potential impacts to the home countries of the respective authors. Sutton et al. (1995)
published a paper in 1995 entitled "Assessment of the Magnitude of Ammonia Emissions in the United
Kingdom." It provides a detailed comparison of NH3 emission literature from the 1980s and early 1990s but
includes no new field research data. The study concludes that there remains a large uncertainty in NH3
emissions estimates. According to Sutton et al., total emissions in the United Kingdom were 450 (231-715)
gigagrams4 NH3 per year (Gg/year), with cattle contributing 245 Gg/year. In a later paper by Pain et al.
(1998), these estimates were apparently adjusted downward. Pain et al. estimated NH3 emissions from
cattle in the United Kingdom to be 99 Gg/year, 49 Gg/year of which being from land application, 27 Gg/year
from housing, and the rest from storage. Ammonia losses from poultry and pig production, and fertilizer use
were estimated at 30, 23, and 32 Gg/year, respectively.
A Canadian assessment of available NH3 volatilization data was done by Paul (1997). For example, using a
nitrogen mass balance approach on a swine house in Ontario, one Canadian research team estimated that
43% of the excreted nitrogen was lost as NH3. This could be converted into an emission factor of 4.6 to 7.0
mg nitrogen per hr per kg live weight. Paul (1997) reported that NH3 volatilization from pig houses was 37
to 40% of excreted N. Danish research reported in Paul found average NH3 volatilization of 35, 20, and 40%
4 Agigagram equals 1 kilotonne or 1 million kilograms.
ion
-------
from animal houses, manure storage facilities (concrete tanks), and land application, respectively. InD
summary, Paul concludes that between 40 and 95% of excreted nitrogen may be volatilized as NH3 before D
the manure reaches the field. D
Ammonia volatilization from land application of pig slurry in France (Moal et al., 1995) was estimated to beD
between 37 and 63% of ammoniacal nitrogen. Lorimor (1999) reports an even greater range for NH3 lossesD
from land application of pig waste; i.e., 11 to 78% ammoniacal nitrogen. The proportion of NH3 varies fromD
high Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN5) (larger than 80%) in lagoons, to around 65% in slurry pits, and downD
to around 15% in solid manure. According to Lorimor, there is typically no nitrate in manure. Most of the D
ammoniacal nitrogen spread on land will volatilize rapidly (e.g., in a few hours to a day); whereas, theD
organically bound nitrogen does not volatilize. The volatilization rate depends on the weather, withD
increased volatilization during warm, breezy conditions. Also, losses may be greater from crop residue thanD
from tilled soil, because the positive NH4+ ions can cling to negative soil particles (Lorimor, 1999).D
2.1.1 Dutch and Danish Information D
Most work on NH3 emissions from animal waste has been done in The Netherlands. This is not surprising D
because The Netherlands has a very high concentration of farm animals. In 1998, there were 15 millionD
swine, 4.6 million cows, and 81 million poultry (Cowling et al., 1998). The Country has an area of 40,OOOD
km2 (15,400 mi2), or a little less than one-third the size of North Carolina. Ninety-five percent of NH3D
emissions in the Country come from animal waste. Ammonia emissions peaked in 1987 at around 250D
million kg NH3 per year to level of 152 million kg NH3 per year in 1995. The reduction in emissions is the D
result of control measures that include manure storage basin covers and low emission land application D
techniques, such as injection. D
The potentially acidifying qualities of NH3 were first recognized in The Netherlands in 1982. In 1984, aD
large coordinated research program was launched, reflecting a growing concern for the potential damage to D
forests. The first two phases of this research program resulted in an understanding of the causes and effects D
of the deposition of acidifying pollutants on forests and heathlands. Long-term emission targets wereD
derived from critical loads for various types of ecosystems and from targets for nitrate leaching in natural D
areas (max. 25 mg/L). It was found that the protection of forests and heathlands required a deposition limit D
of 1,400 moles of FT per hectare and 1,000 moles of N per hectare. This would imply major reductions thatD
5 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen represents the total ammonia and organic nitrogen in a sample and is determined by
digestion where organic nitrogen is converted to ammonia (Metcalf & Eddy, 1991, p. 85).
11D
-------
were to be reached in phases. The first phase was a reduction of 30% compared to 1980 levels. Ultimately,
the goal is a 70% reduction in 2005, which translates into a national NH3 emission of about 60 million kg
NH3 per year. It is now unlikely that this goal will be met (Hoogervorst, 1997).
As part of the aforementioned broad program, the Dutch Institute for Health and Environment (RIVM)
developed a comprehensive methodology to estimate NH3 emissions from animal manure, fertilizer usage,
industrial processes, and households. This methodology was published in a 50-page document in 1994 (Van
der Hoek, 1994). In 1998, the NH3 emission methodology underwent a comprehensive review by
researchers associated with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. The reason was that the level and
trend of estimated emissions from agricultural sources were consistently significantly different from
emissions calculated from ambient air data. The comprehensive review included the most recent literature
and expert knowledge available in The Netherlands at that time. The results of this study are detailed in a
138-page document (Steenvoorden et al., 1999) and are summarized in Chapter 4, together with text from the
methodology report (Van der Hoek, 1994).
Also, the Danish Government has opted for a mass balance approach. Danish NH3 emissions were estimated
by Hutchings et al. (2001) who applied a mass-balance-based model in a well-documented and
comprehensive effort that is summarized here. The model that was used was developed to match the quality
and quantity of available activity data in Denmark. Ammonia emissions are calculated separately for
housing, manure storage, and during and after spreading (see Figure 1). Animals were divided into 31
categories according to species and housing type. The categories were chosen to match available national
activity data from the Danish Agricultural Advisory Centre. Next, the total Danish livestock and poultry
population was distributed amongst these categories, and the total nitrogen excreted annually by the animals
in each category was calculated by multiplying the animal numbers with the annual nitrogen excretion per
animal. The fate of this nitrogen was followed throughout the manure-handling chain, with NH3 emission
calculated as a percentage of the amount of nitrogen present in each link in the chain. The model also takes
into account additional nitrogen from bedding and spilled feed. Emission factors are expressed as NH3
nitrogen in percent of total remaining nitrogen. For example, emissions from spreading are expressed in
percent of nitrogen present after storage.
12D
-------
In Denmark, emission factors are available for the main categories, but not for all categories. For example,
according to Hutchings there are no well-documented studies on NH3 emissions from poultry manure
storage. As mentioned earlier, this Danish model distinguishes between emissions from manure spreading
and emissions from after spreading. The emission factors for emissions after spreading take climate, crop
cover, and seasons into account and are, again, based on a series of field tests. According to Hutchings et al.
(2001), emissions from the act of spreading slurry-type manure with a broadcast-type spreader are minimal
(i.e., 1%); whereas, emissions after spreading on a crop bearing field in summer can be as high as 30%. No
further details were provided.
This Danish model shows that there are large differences in NH3 emissions between different animal species
and manure handling systems. Animal husbandry systems that make use of litter (e.g., hay) have higher
volatilization rates than systems that rely on slurry. Hutchings points out that substantial uncertainties are
associated with emissions from litter systems, with the allocation of animals with housing types, and manure
handling systems. Other issues are associated with the fine-scale geographical allocation of emissions. NH3
has a relatively high deposition rate, so local agricultural sources can have a large effect on neighboring
ecosystems. Furthermore, Hutchings emphasizes that the model will be valid only as long as the chemical
and physical characteristics of the manure don't change. The model cannot be used to examine the effect of
changing these characteristics; e.g., changing feeding practices or the pH of the manure. The model is better
suited for modeling the effects of alternate distributions of animal populations over the different categories.
2.2 EMISSIONS FROM HOUSES
Two comprehensive papers in the English language were found that include field test information. A paper
by Groot Koerkamp (1998) is summarized below. It is illustrative of the research that has been conducted in
Europe in the last 5 years, focusing on emissions from houses. The second paper, by Demmers et al. (1999),
describes measurements quantifying the NH3 emissions from an English broiler chicken house and a
finishing pig unit. The NH3 was converted to nitric oxide the concentration of which was analyzed using
chemiluminescence. Other papers that contained novel field test results are Hendriks et al. (1998) and
Aarnink (1997), and these also detail emissions from houses. Pertinent findings of these papers are included
in Section 2.2.1, entitled: "Mechanisms Governing Potential Ammonia Emissions Reductions from Swine
Houses."
13D
-------
Groot Koerkamp (1998) includes a discussion of NH3 emissions field test results from various housing types
for different livestock in The Netherlands, United Kingdom, Denmark, and Germany. Fourteen
combinations of livestock and housing were defined that could be found in each of the four countries.
Measurements were conducted at seven different sampling points in each house over a 24-hour period in
summer and winter at each of the approximately 56 (14 x 4) locations. Data collected included
concentration, air flux, and temperature, as well as animal counts and weights. The NH3 analyzer used was a
combination of a chemiluminescence nitrogen oxide analyzer and a thermal NH3 converter. The seven
sampling points were in a cross-section in the middle of the house, three at about 1.5 m height, three at 2.5 m
height, and one close to the exhaust.
Ammonia emissions are expressed in milligrams (mg) per hour per animal, per 500 kg live weight, and per
heat producing unit6 (hpu) where 1 hpu = 1 kW. Tables 1 and 2 include emissions per animal and per 500 kg
live weight, as well as the variance between summer and winter emissions and between replicates. The
estimated NH3 emission for each location was corrected for the mean outside temperature per country. The
mean emission of NH3 over 24 hr. was assumed to have a Poisson distribution. The effect of seasonal
variations on the NH3 emissions of the outdoor temperature was generally between -5 and +5% per °C.
Groot Koerkamp concludes that not all variations could be explained in terms of physical and chemical
processes involved in the emission of NH3. There are variations between countries for the same animal
species and the same housing type; between replicates of a certain housing type in a country; diurnal
variation; as well as yearly or seasonal variation beyond what may be expected from a relationship between
outdoor temperature and emissions. The spatial variation of the seven sampling points inside a house was
relatively small compared with the other sources of variation. The variations are in part due to the fact that
the effect of the manure handling (daily, weekly, or monthly removal from the building) and the effect of
growth of the animals during the production period on NH3 emissions were not taken into account in the
statistical analyses. (It is assumed that the relationship between size of the animal and NH3 emissions is
linear.) It is possible that a large part of the variations may be caused by differences in diet (expert judgment
by authors).
No other information was available regarding this parameter, and it was not used by other authors.
14D
-------
Table 1: Ammonia Emissions for Different Livestock and Housing Systems in England, The
Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany (live weight based)
Animal type and
housing system
Dairy cows, litter
Dairy cows, cubicles
Beef cows, litter
Beef cows, slats3
Calves litter
Calves, slats/group
Sows, litter
Sows, slats
Farrows, slats
Finishers, litter
Finishers, slats
Layers, litter
Layers, deep pit
Broilers, litter
Variance (cv %)
between replicates
between seasons
Ammonia Emissions in mg NH3/h our/500 kg live weight
England
Mean
260
1048
478
-
315
-
744
1,049
1,047
1,429
2,592
7,392
9,316
8,294
68
46
c.v. %
42
49
44
-
39
-
38
38
38
39
39
38
38
41
The Netherlands
Mean
890
1,769
-
853
-
1,148
-
1,282
786
-
2,076
9,455
1,624
4,179
42
24
c.v. %
24
23
-
23
-
23
-
24
27
-
23
23
26
24
Denmark
Mean
491
843
-
900
1037
-
-
1,701
1,562
3,751
2,568
10,892
2,160
2,208
8
46
c.v. %
19
20
-
17
18
-
-
17
18
20
18
20
34
33
Germany
Mean
467
1,168
431
371
886
1,797
3,248
1,212
649
-
2,398
-
602
7,499
21
57
c.v. %
30
30
26
30
23
23
34
24
25
-
21
-
28
24
From Groot Koerkamp (1998)
a slats in barn floor
The values presented in Groot Koerkamp et al. must be considered as the mean emission rates for mean
conditions of manure handling and growing stage of the animals. The authors are of the opinion that the
disadvantage of the short (24-hr) measuring period in each house was overcome by the number of repetitions
of measurements in four replicates of each housing type under summer and winter conditions. A comparison
with Dutch data showed that the measurement method for NH3 emissions used in this research produces
accurate mean emission rates per animal and housing type in the four countries.
15D
-------
Table 2: Ammonia Emissions for Different Livestock and Housing Systems in England, The
Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany (animal based)
Animal type and
housing system
Dairy cows, litter
Dairy cows, cubicles
Beef cows, litter
Beef cows, slats3
Calves litter
Calves, slats/group
Sows, litter
Sows, slats
Farrows, slats
Finishers, litter
Finishers, slats
Layers, litter
Layers, deep pit
Broilers, litter
Variance (cv %)
Between replicates
Between seasons
Ammonia Emissions in mg NHs/hour/animal
England
Mean
314
1245
482
-
80
-
303
503
26
108
185
31
39
20
69
55
c.v. %
45
52
48
-
41
-
40
40
40
42
42
41
40
44
The Netherlands
Mean
974
2,001
-
686
-
522
-
535
27
-
385
36
6
11
43
26
c.v. %
24
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
28
-
23
24
27
24
Denmark
Mean
56
987
-
580
332
-
-
730
46
394
319
38
8
9
28
48
c.v. %
24
25
-
22
23
-
-
23
23
26
23
26
40
44
Germany
Mean
538
1,320
262
346
193
323
1,298
325
22
-
308
-
2
19
22
58
c.v. %
31
31
27
31
24
24
35
25
26
22
29
25
From Groot Koerkamp (1998)
a slats in barn floor
Demmers et al. (1999) estimated an emission factor of 47 kg NH3 per 500 kg live weight per year for swine,
based on continuous occupation. Because the average weight of the animals was 25.7 kg, this can also be
expressed as 270 mg NH3/animal/hour. In contrast, Groot Koerkamp et al. found 185 mg/animal/hour for
English finishing pigs on fully slatted floors (see Table 2), as well as 385, 319, and 308 mg/animal/hour for
pigs in The Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany, respectively. The emission factor value reported by
Demmers for broilers is 17 kg NH3/500 kg/year; based on a 290-day occupation during the year this can be
converted into 2,442 mg NH3/500 kg/hour. This value is much lower than the Groot Koerkamp's 8,294
value for English broilers but does compare well to the Danish number (see Table 1).
2.2.1 Mechanisms Governing Potential Ammonia Emissions Reductions from Swine Houses
There are numerous control mechanisms and technologies that have been proven or have the potential to
reduce NH3 emissions from swine waste. Example technologies with a proven track record include more
frequent and separate removal of urine and feces, storage basin covers, and swine waste injection into soil.
A discussion on these technologies is not part of this report, but from the literature on emissions, it became
16D
-------
clear that there are five principal mechanisms that govern NH3 emissions from houses. These mechanisms
are: nutrition, temperature, surface area of the waste collection pit under the floor, slatted floor type, and
diurnal variations. Except for nutrition, these parameters are discussed below in more detail.
Animal nutrition is an important mechanism for controlling NH3 emissions. By selecting certain feed,
nitrogen excretion can be influenced. The type of nitrogen (i.e., mineral nitrogen or organic nitrogen) can be
influenced, as can the fractions of nitrogen excreted via urine and feces. A detailed analysis of animal
nutrition is beyond the scope of this report. Some general text is included in Section 3.1. Also, ample
specialized information can be found in handbooks and in the literature. North Carolina State University
employs several swine nutrition extension specialists that may be consulted (website:
http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/an sci/extension/).
-Temperature D
Steenvoorden et al. (1999) describe research that was done in 1995 to study the relationship between NH3D
emissions and ambient air temperature inside a mechanically ventilated standard dairy house. Data are D
presented in Table 3 and Figure 2, which serve to illustrate that there is a significant positive correlation D
between NH3 emissions, as well as volatilization percentage (calculated by assuming constant nitrogen D
quantities in excretion) and temperature.7 However, it is not recommended to extrapolate these or other dataD
to situations with significantly higher temperatures, because of the non-linear, exponential relationship D
between vapor pressure and temperature, as well as the influence of other parameters (Asman, 2001). D
Table 3: Correlation Between Ammonia Volatilization and Temperature Inside Dairy House
Month (1989)
January
February
March
April
May
Tempe
(°C)
11.8
12.4
14.4
14.1
18.4
rature
(°F)
53
54
58
57
65
Ammonia Emission
(g N/animal/day)
25.6
28.4
29.1
30.1
39.9
Volatilization a
(%)
7.4
8.1
8.3
8.3
11.3
Constant N-excretion of 352 g N/animal
Other research mentioned in Steenvoorden et al. (1999) provides additional qualitative proof of the effect of
temperature, by discussing the benefits of refrigeration of swine waste in a house as an effective control technology to
reduce emissions.
17D
-------
10
12
14 16
Temperature (deg C)
18
20
Figure 2: Relationship Between Ammonia Emissions and Ambient Temperature in a Dairy House
Another illustrative document is that by Hendriks et al. (1998), who studied the effect on NH3 emissions of a
biological additive to manure stored in a Belgian commercial swine house. The house was mechanically
ventilated and partially slatted. Manure was stored in a pit 2 meters deep that was emptied twice a year. The
effectiveness of the additive is not pertinent to this report, but there are interesting supporting data with
standard deviations from thorough control tests, which are reflected in Table 4. During the periods indicated
in Table 4, measurements were taken every 12 minutes. Emissions are lowest for the second fall/winter test.
During this period the temperature above the manure was lowest. During periods of low temperature, the
building is probably ventilated less, which will further contribute to a reduction in NH3 volatilization. Also
Aarnink (1997) noted seasonal variations in NH3 emissions, with emissions generally higher in summer than
in winter. An additional finding of Aarnink was that the solid floor (in a pen with a partially slatted floor)
was fouled more during summer than in winter. An explanation for this behavior may be that the pigs prefer
to lie on the cooler slats in summer, thereby fouling the other, solid side of the pen (Harris, 2001).
18D
-------
Table 4: Ammonia Emission Factors fora Belgian Swine House
Time period
NH3 emission per animal
(g/hr/animal)
Average weight of animals (kg)
NH3 emission per kg live weight
(mg/h our/kg)
NH3 emission per kg live weight
(g/year/kg)
Temperature in pit
(5 cm above manure level) (°C)
Relative humidity (%)
Late summer
(8/95 - 9/95)
0.5(0.1)a
75
7.2 (1 .9)
63
22.1 (1.5)
67(6)
Winter
(12/94-3/95)
0.43(0.18)
61
6.3 (2.2)
55
19.2(2.0)
65(5)
Fall to winter
(9/96 - 2/97)
0.46 (0.20)
77
6.6 (3.5)
58
16.8(3.1)
68(10)
Fall to early winter
(9/96-1/97)
0.29 (0.14)
26
4.0 (1 .6)
35
14.2(1.2)
73(6)
Standard deviation in parentheses
Surface Area
Steenvoorden et al. (1999) also describe research to determine the correlation between the waste pit surface
area that is fouled and NH3 emissions per pig in a Dutch swine house (see Table 5). The findings concluded
that NH3 emissions show a strong positive correlation with waste pit area. A typical Dutch swine house has
a scraper system and a partially slatted floor, which is different from the typical North Carolina pull-plug
system where the entire house has a pit with water. Therefore, this research may not be directly relevant to
the North Carolina situation.
Table 5: Relationship Between Ammonia Emissions and Waste Collection Area
Type of pig/ pit system
Finishers
standard (50% slatted)
separate manure gutters
sloping floors
Gestating sows
standard individual confinement
narrow manure gutter with metal
slatted floor
Farrowing sows
standard fully slatted floor
shallow manure pit with gutter
Pit area
(m2 per animal place)
0.40
0.29
0.18
1.1
0.4
4.1
0.8
Ammonia emission
( kg NH3 per animal per year)
2.5
1.8
1.0
4.2
2.4
8.3
4.0
19D
-------
For both rearing and fattening pigs (farrows and finishers), Aarnink (1997) compared pens with a 50%D
slatted floor area with pens that have a 25% slatted floor area. For rearing pigs, the NH3 emission from the D
25% slatted pens was 20% lower than from the 50% slatted pens. For fattening pigs, the difference wasD
10%. Aarnink concludes that NH3 emissions were positively related to the urine-fouled area and to theD
frequency of urination. Reducing the slatted floor and slurry pit surface area in houses for rearing as well asD
fattening pigs decreased NH3 emissions from the slurry pit. D
-Slatted Floor Type D
To determine the effect of the slatted floor construction on NH3 emissions, Aarnink (1997) did field tests onD
the excretion behavior of fattening pigs on five types of slatted floors. In the experiment there were two D
concrete slatted floors, a cast iron slatted floor, and two floors whose metal slats were triangular in cross D
section (tip of triangle in cross section pointing down). One of the metal slats was partially covered withD
studs to prevent the pigs from lying in the excreting area.8 The studs were 5 cm high, 3.2 cm in diameter, D
and spaced 20 cm apart. The NH3 volatilization from the metal slatted floors was significantly lower byD
27%, compared to the volatilization from the standard concrete slatted floors with 10-cm wide slats and 2-cmD
wide gaps. The best result (least fouling) was achieved with the floor with studs, which had a 35%D
emissions reduction compared to the standard concrete floor (10-cm wide slats with 2-cm wide gaps). It wasD
concluded that slatted floors from smoother material and with more open space than concrete slatted floors, D
such as floors with triangular section metal slates, significantly reduce NH3 emissions from the slats. D
Diurnal Variations D
Aarnink (1997) found that diurnal patterns in NH3 emissions differed between houses with rearing pigs andD
houses with fattening pigs. Both houses had higher emissions during the day than during the night: +10%D
for rearing and +7% for fattening pigs. For rearing pigs, emissions peaked in the morning, but for fattening D
pigs they peaked in the afternoon. Aarnink suggests that this seems to be related to the behavior of the D
animals. Also, Harris (2001) noted a significant diurnal cycle inNH3 emissions (see Section 3.1).D
By nature, pigs are animals that prefer not to foul their resting area. When placed in a new pen, they first choose
their lying area. The excretion area is generally located as far as possible from the lying area. However, the lying
and excreting behavior of pigs is strongly influenced by the indoor climate. At higher ambient temperatures, the
behavior of the pigs seems to be driven by finding cool spots to lie on, such as the slats (Aarnink, 1997).
20 D
-------
2.3 REGIONAL AND GLOBAL METHODOLOGIES
Several efforts to estimate global NH3 emissions have been conducted over the past 20 years. The most
recent, comprehensive effort by Dutch, Danish, and English researchers in Global Biochemical Cycles that
includes nine major NH3 sources and was specifically developed for input into global atmospheric models
(Bouwman et al., 1997). In this effort, emissions from domestic animal waste were estimated to be 21.6
teragrams N/year (Tg N/year); whereas, total global emissions from all sources were estimated at 54 Tg
N/year. The overall uncertainty in the global estimate is stated to be 25%, while the uncertainty in regional
emissions is much greater. The calculation of NH3 emissions from domestic animal waste is based upon a
mass balance method that uses average nitrogen excretion for different domestic animal categories and
subsequent NH3 losses during housing, storage, and land application, or grazing. Emission factors were
based on the work of Van der Hoek and Couling (1996) and Van der Hoek (1998).
In another article in Atmospheric Environment by Bouwman and Van der Hoek (1997), the same
methodology is used to develop scenarios for NH3 emissions from developing countries. (See Table 6.) The
nitrogen excretion data that are represented are very broad. In developing countries, lower feeding levels
and a lower N content of the feed result in a lower volatilization fraction of the N in animal waste. It was
assumed by the authors that this is counteracted by the higher temperatures in developing countries, in
comparison to developed countries.
Table 6: Default Nitrogen Excretion and Ammonia Volatilization Rates for Dairy and Beef Cattle,
Swine, and Poultry
Category
Dairy Cattle
Feed lot b
Pasture
Total
Beef Cattle
Feed lot
Pasture
Total
Pigs
Poultry
Developing Countries
N excretion
(kgN
/head/yr)
40
20
60
10
30
40
11
0.5
NH3-N
loss
(%)
36
15
29
36
15
20
36
36
E.F.a
(kg NH3
/head/yr)
21
10
5
0.22
Developed Countries
N excretion
(kgN
/head/yr)c
50
30
80
15
30
45
11
0.5
NH3-N
loss
(%)
36
8
26
36
8
17
36
36
E.F.a
(kg NH3
/head/yr)
25
9
5
0.22
Emission factors were calculated by the authors as follows: (N excretion) x (N loss through volatilization) x 17/14.
Based on open lot system, where cattle spend 40/60 = 66% of time in feedlot and 33% in pasture.
N excretion data for developed countries are fairly low. This may be explained by the fact that "developed countries"
also include countries that do not have highly developed animal management practices.
21D
-------
Another major effort to estimate European and country-specific NH3 emissions was undertaken under
auspices of the European Union as part of a comprehensive program that covers 28 European countries, 11
major source categories, and 8 air pollutants. The inventory is known as the EMEP/CORINAIR90 inventory
and the emission factors and other data are detailed in the Atmospheric Emission Inventory Guidebook
(AEIG, 1998), which is available on CD-ROM and on the Internet9. The NH3 section can be found in the
chapter entitled: "Agriculture and Forestry, Manure Management." As part of this effort, eight expert
panels were established that provided input on various pollutants. The NH3 emissions panel, that included
32 scientists from 17 European countries, defined default NH3 emission factors that are applicable to the
average European situation (see Figure 3).
CO
30
25
20
15
D Grazing
D Land Application
Storage (outside house)
DHouse
Dairy cows All other Finishers Sows, incl. Layers Broilers
cattle farrows
Figure 3. European Union Ammonia Emission Factors
Other
poultry
The website of the European Environment Agency is: http://www.eea.eu.int/. The website for the CORINAIR
Atmospheric Emission Inventory Guidebook is: http://reports.eea.eu.int/EMEPCORINAIR/en/.
22
-------
The European Union default emission factors are based on nitrogen excretions and volatilization
percentages. The appendix to the Agriculture and Forestry, Manure Management chapter includes a detailed
list of animal category-specific nitrogen concentrations and volatilization rates that were used to calculate
the emission factors in Table 6. Countries that have more detailed data available can use this table to
calculate more accurate emission factors. Unfortunately, no emission factors for lagoons are included,
because lagoons are uncommon in Europe.
Asman's original emission factors are compared in Table 7 with those from Table 6 (see also Figure 3). The
emission factors from Bouwman et al. (1997) are consistently somewhat lower than those of
EMEP/CORINAIR. Only for beef cattle, is there a major difference among the three data sets, which may be
due to differences in feed. The emission factors in Table 6 and Figure 3 do not differ markedly from the
emission factors by Asman in Battye et al. (1994).
Table 7: Comparison in the Literature of Ammonia Emission Factors for Cattle,
Swine, and Poultry
a,b,c,d
Cattle (dairy)
Cattle (other)
Swine
Poultry (layers)
Poultry (broilers)
Asman in Battye et al., 1994
Stable and
Storage
7.4
7.4
2.5
0.1
0.1
Land
Application
12.2
12.2
2.8
0.15
0.15
Grazing
3.4
3.4
Total
23
23
5.4
0.25
0.25
Bouwman &
Van der
Hoek, 1997
Total
25
9
5
0.22
0.22
EMEP/
CORINAIR
Total
28
14
6
0.37
0.28
Emission factors are in kg NHs per animal per year.
These emission factors are for country estimates, not for individual farms.
The use of decimals does not indicate accuracy.
Sum of individual numbers may be different from totals due to rounding.
23 D
-------
3 FIELD TESTS IN NORTH CAROLINA
Comprehensive field tests were conducted in the mid to late 1990s at a swine operation in Eastern North
Carolina (Farm 10). The tests program at Farm 10 was coordinated by NCDENR and included research
teams from or funded by NCDENR, USEPA's Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division (APPCD),
North Carolina State University, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. Farm 10 is an integrated farrow-to-finish farm with nine finishing houses and
four farrowing houses. The waste management system is "flush-type" with a pit under each side of the
house, running the length of the house. Each pit (per half house) is flushed every week (assumed) for
several hours with water from the lagoon. After flushing, no water remains in the pits. This type of waste
removal system is uncommon, because most farms now have a pull-plug system10 (see Appendix A).
Effluent from the lagoon is sprayed on surrounding crop fields. The field tests focused on lagoons
because in the mid-1990s, lagoons were thought to be the largest contributors to NH3 emissions compared
to houses or spray fields.
Three field tests (Aneja et al, 2000; Todd, 1999; and Harper and Sharpe, 1998) at Farm 10 pertained to
emissions from lagoons, and the results are summarized in Section 3.2. In their field test report, Harper
and Sharpe report on an additional, limited field test at another lagoon at a different farm (Farm 20).
Another study at Farm 10 analyzed NH3, NH4+ aerosol, and acid gas concentrations downwind of the
farm and applied dispersion modeling to develop a rough overall NH3 emission factor (McCulloch et al.,
1998). Annular denuder systems were used to sample acid gases (hydrogen chloride, nitrous acid, nitric
acid, sulfur dioxide) and NH3, as well as fine aerosols (NFL* chloride, NFL^ nitrate, and NFL* sulfate).
The study provides concentrations of all analytes and a coarse NH3 emission factor for the whole farm of
5 to 10 kg per year per animal.
Unfortunately, no NH3 emissions from spraying operations were measured for Farm 10; however, one
Georgia field study was found that pertains to NH3 emissions from spray fields (Sharpe and Harper,
1997). A micrometeorology method was used to determine NH3 emissions from a sprayed oats field of 12
hectares in Georgia. To this field, 45 kg NH3 as N per hectare was applied, of which 4.7 and 20.3 kg
volatilized during application and post-application, respectively. This translates into a volatilization
10 In this report, a mass balance approach is used to estimate total NHs emissions from a swine farm. The type of
waste removal system in the house is not expected to be a significant parameter affecting total emissions. However, it is
not recommended to take the isolated house emissions from Farm 10 and use them to estimate emissions from other
houses. The same holds true for the lagoon emissions.
24 D
-------
factor of 56%. Appendix B includes findings from a North Carolina study that focused on nitrous oxide D
emissions from spray fields. D
Only one study was done at Farm 10 that provided limited sets of emissions data from swine houses D
(Harris and Thompson, 1998). The results of this study are included in Section 3.1. One of theD
conclusions from the comprehensive Farm 10 program was that additional emissions data were needed toD
better characterize emissions from swine houses. Especially, information was needed on diurnal andD
seasonal emissions, as well as emissions related to the size of the animals. As a followup to the Farm 10 D
program, the APPCD conducted the first phase of a comprehensive field study in 2000, at four separate, D
but nearly identical feeder-to-finish farms in southern North Carolina (Harris, 2001).D
3.1 EMISSIONS FROM HOUSESD
Harris and Thompson (1998) reported an NH3 emission factor for several swine houses at the Farm 10 siteD
in North Carolina. The houses at Farm 10 are equipped with five exhaust fans mounted at the lagoon-end D
of the houses, which turn on when the temperature exceeds 24 °C inside or by timer to allow for aD
minimum circulation of fresh air. Open-path Fourier transform infrared (OP-FTIR) spectroscopy wasD
applied to collect data across a path behind nine houses, where air from the houses is exhausted by theD
fans. Because a fence ringed the houses, the exhaust ducts could not be sampled directly, and the infraredD
beam was aimed through the fan plume 1 meter from the duct exit. Emission factors were developed byD
monitoring the number of fans that were operating and estimating their flows from manufacturer's D
literature. D
Using a finisher pig population of 6,000, Harris and Thompson (1998) report NH3 emissions of 7.5 g/pig/D
day for November 1997; 13.0 g/pig/day for January 1998; and 9.2 g/pig/day for May 1998, as well as anD
average emission factor of 9.9 g/pig/day. On an annual basis, these emissions are presented as 3.69D
kg/pig/year with an individual seasonal range of 2.74 - 4.75 kg/pig/year. No data were collected for theD
farrowing houses. These values are based on certain assumptions used in the conversions from theD
measured ambient concentrations to the reported emission factors. These assumptions include: D
That emissions from the finishing houses were isolated from the farrowing houses by filtering the
data based upon wind direction;
A per-fan volumetric flow rate of 11,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm), which could not be
adequately verified;
25 D
-------
The number of fans used in the calculations was based on a visual observation and was
considered a constant for each sampling period; and
Swine population was regarded as a constant for all sampling periods in the absence of hard data.
It should be noted that the values presented for Farm 10 are described as an "upper bound" since data
were collected only during the daytime, due to both instrument limitations and restrictions from farm
management. The research results do not take potential diurnal fluctuations into account, which could
make the actual emission factor somewhat lower.11
As a followup to the Farm 10 program, the APPCD continued its research into emission factors for swine
confinement buildings. In the first phase of a comprehensive field study in summer 2000, data were
collected at four separate feeder-to-finish farms in southern North Carolina (Harris 2001). Each farm
consisted of 10 tunnel-ventilated barns with a pull-plug waste removal system. Three barns at each farm
were tested representing young, middle, and older age groups within the production cycle. Two
chemiluminescent NH3 analyzers sampled the exhaust from a rake mounted inside the exhaust cones. An
anemometer determined air velocities at the optical path in the former study while the latter included
calculations based upon fan duty cycle (sail switch determination), P (differential pressure) measured
across the fans, and the equipment manufacturer's factory calibration curves. Mass emission rate was
determined from the product of total flow rate and concentrations measured.
Preliminary conclusions indicate that there is no statistically significant variation in the emission factor as a
function of age or weight. The most likely explanation for this is that the recycled lagoon water used to flush
the pit below the barn floor provides a baseline emission source that contributes a significant portion of the
barn emissions. Also it is noted that there is a significant diurnal cycle. Based on these field tests a
preliminary emission factor of 4.31 kg/pig/year is suggested for emissions in summer from pull-plug, feeder-
to-finish operations.
11 Diurnal fluctuations may be less of an issue in poultry houses than in swine houses, because in poultry houses,
the lights are on 24 hours per day.
26 D
-------
3.2 EMISSIONS FROM LAGOONS
The lagoon at Farm 10 was sampled by several research groups over a period of a year using different
techniques that include a flux chamber, a micrometereology method, and a FTIR technique. Summaries
of the results of each group are given below, and detailed information on these different air sampling
techniques is included in Appendix C.
Aneja et al. (2000) used a flux chamber method to measure NH3 emissions from the lagoon surface. This
method uses a plastic chamber of defined dimensions to isolate a portion of the source under
investigation. During use, a zero-grade (zero background for the effluent being tested) compressed air
source delivers a known flow rate through the chamber and carries the diluted effluent being tested to an
appropriate analytical technique. (In this case, the NH3 was converted to nitric oxide, which in turn was
measured using chemiluminescence.) By measuring the effluent concentration in the diluted exit stream
and having set the carrier gas flow rate, effluent mass per unit time is easily determined. The researchers
report that NH3 flux displays a diurnal variation, which is highly correlated with lagoon surface water
temperature. The average flux in the summer of 1997 was 4,017 ± 987 |o,g N/m2 min; whereas, emission
fluxes during the spring, fall, and winter were lower. Emission factors from this study are included in the
summary table, Table 8.
A micrometeorology method was used by Harper and Sharpe (1998) to measure NH3 emissions from the
lagoon at Farm 10. The micrometeorology technique uses a vertical array of wind speed and temperature
sensors operated with the air sampling occurring in parallel. During testing, this vertical array is floated
to the middle of the lagoon. Ammonia concentrations were obtained by drawing unfiltered air through
gas-washing bottles containing sulfuric acid at a known rate for 4 hours. The NFL^ concentrations were
analyzed using colorimetry. The authors report that NH3 emissions vary with time of day and season and
were related to lagoon NH3 concentration, pH, temperature, and wind turbulence. Emission factors from
these studies are included in Table 8. In the field test report, the authors also discuss results from a field
test at a lagoon at a second farm in North Carolina (Farm NC 20).
Todd (1999) used atomographic open-path Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (CAT-OP-FTIR)
technology for measuring emissions from the lagoon at Farm 10. This technique requires two or more
scanning OP-FTIRs and several retroreflectors. For the determination of emission rates, a tracer gas, non-
reactive and without interference from ambient species or the effluent under study, was released from the
27 D
-------
middle of the sampling area. Data were collected during daytime and evenings in November and May
(see Table 8).
Table 8: Results from Ammonia Emissions Field Tests at Lagoons
at Two North Carolina Swine Farms3
Field Test
Method
Flux chamber
Micro-
meteorology
Flux chamber
Tomographic
OP-FTIR
Reference
Aneja etal., 2000
Harper & Sharpe, 1998;
Tables 1 and 3
Aneja et al. in Harper &
Sharpe (1998)
Todd, 1999
Farm
No.
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
20
20
20
20
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
Study Period
Aug. 1997
Dec. 1997
Feb. 1998
May 1998
Average
Spring 1997 to
winter 1998
Spring 1997
Summer 1997
Winter 1998
Average
Spring 1997 to
winter 1998
Spring 1997
Summer 1997
Winter 1998
Average
Aug. 1997
Nov. 1997; daytime
Nov. 1997; evenings
May 1998; daytime
May 1998; evenings
Average
NH3 per
Lagoon
(kg/day)
156.2
32.8
11.9
66.3
66.8
28.1
26.0
50.5
20.5
31.3
14.7
11.8
13.8
19.0
14.8
70.5
89.2
225.5
274.8
165
NH3 per
Animal
(kg/ani./yr)
5.64
1.19
0.43
2.40
2.42
0.75
0.94
1.82
0.74
1.06
1.25
1.00
1.17
1.61
126
1.80
2.55
3.22
8.15
9.93
5.96
NH3 per
Standard Live
Weight
(kg/kg/yr)
0.0821
0.0172
0.0062
0.0349
0.0351
0.0133
0.0137
0.0265
0.0107
0.0767
0.0137
0.0112
0.0132
0.0182
0.0141
0.0370
0.0469
0.1185
0.1444
0.0867
a Adapted from Aneja etal. (2000); Harper & Sharpe (1998); and Todd (1999). Refer to original papers for
precision.
Farm: Lagoon area: Type of farm: Waste removal: Population:
No. 10 2.7 hectare Farrow to finish flush-type 7,480 finishers (135 Ib); 1,212 sows, boars (400 Ib);
and 1,410 piglets (25 Ib).
No. 20 2.4 hectare Farrow to wean pull-plug 2,352 piglets (25 Ib), and 1,940 sows (400 Ib).
28 D
-------
4 MASS BALANCE METHODOLOGY
This chapter includes a comprehensive review of the mass balance methodology as it is applied in TheD
Netherlands (Steenvoorden et al, 1999; Van der Hoek, 1994). Also, other countries in Europe, such asD
Denmark, have opted for a mass balance approach (Hutchings et al., 2001). NCDENR is conducting aD
preliminary evaluation of a simple nitrogen mass balance to document nutrient efficiency at the farm level. D
This mass balance would not distinguish between air and water emissions, but would merely estimate the D
portion of excreted nitrogen that cannot be accounted for (i.e., that is lost to the environment), whileD
excluding molecular nitrogen (N2). The mass balance uses a feed conversion rate for the nitrogen that is D
bound in the animal to calculate nitrogen output. From this number, the nitrogen that is emitted as N2 gasD
and that is taken up by crops is subtracted. The methodologies for both the feed conversion rate and the N2n
gas conversion factor are undergoing an investigation to assess if more detail is needed to define these D
parameters adequately. D
4.1 DUTCH METHODOLOGY D
The Dutch NH3 emission methodology follows a mass balance approach based on the average yearly D
nitrogen excretion per animal type and the different emission or volatilization factors from specific emission D
sources; i.e., house, storage/treatment, and land application. The nitrogen excretion is the differenceD
between the nitrogen that is ingested by the animal and the nitrogen that is ultimately bound in the D
agricultural product (meat, eggs, dairy). For all animal categories, it was determined that possible nitrogenD
losses from hair, skin, sweat, and exhalation are negligible. D
Because NH3 emissions from the different sources will depend on the amount of nitrogen in the animal D
waste, emission factors are expressed in a percentage of the amount of nitrogen that is in the animal waste atD
that time at that source.12 This approach takes the entire waste management pathway into account. ForD
example, an emission reduction in the house may result in higher emissions from storage or land application, D
12 This is not entirely correct, as was pointed out in Steenvoorden et al. (1999). From measurements and by modeling,
it was shown that the relationship between nitrogen excretion and NHs emission is not linear. When the nitrogen
concentration in the urine increases, the volatilization of this nitrogen will increase too. For example, for pigs, 65 - 70% of
nitrogen may be excreted via urine, and 30 - 35% via feces. The feces nitrogen is mainly protein, either from the animal
itself or undigested feed protein. In general it is assumed that this protein is digested slowly and NHs emissions (e.g.,
from houses) are limited. Therefore, it can be concluded that for pigs NHs emissions are more strongly correlated with
the nitrogen in urine than with total nitrogen. (Steenvoorden et al., 1999) (This is not the case with chickens and other
birds because all nitrogen is excreted via the kidneys.)
29 D
-------
or a reduction of the amount of nitrogen in manure and/or urine would not necessarily lead to a proportional
reduction in NH3 emissions, because of the waste management method.
Emission factors were originally expressed in kg NH3 per animal space per year. For example a farm with a
capacity of 5,000 swine would have 5,000 animal spaces. This led to estimates that were too high because
varying animal weights, mortality, and vacancy were not taken into account. As a result, a new parameter
was introduced: average animal present (AAP). In the revised version of the Dutch methodology, NH3
emission factors are expressed in percent volatilization of average nitrogen excretion (kg N) per AAP for
each specific source.
For example, the methodology for calculating NH3 emissions (E) from a specific type of house is:
E = n x Nex x EF (kg NH3 as N/yr),
where:
n = number of AAP,
Nex = excretion per animal (kg N/yr),
EF = percent volatilization of average nitrogen excretion (kg N) per AAP for that
specific type of house.
When used with local animal population data, the Dutch model allows for estimation of NH3 emissions, as
well as estimation of animal waste generation. This is an advantage because, on a local or farm scale,
information on total animal waste generation could be used to determine the number of animals in relation to
factors, such as the required animal waste storage volume or application area. Larger scale NH3 or animal
waste data can be obtained by simple summation. An important assumption is that the number of animals
for a certain geographical area during the count is equal to the average number of animals; i.e., the vacancy
at the time of the count is equal to the average annual vacancy. Errors of this nature can be avoided by using
AAP. Compared to "live weight," AAP also offers the advantage of better visualization to the user;
2,000,000 chickens present may be more meaningful to the general reader than 5,000,000 Ib of live chicken
weight.
30D
-------
4.1.1 Nitrogen Content
Steenvoorden et al, (1999) determined that a change in mineral content in the feed has a larger impact on
mineral quantities in manure than a comparable increase or decrease in the number of animals. Mineral
contents in feed can vary significantly, especially for cows, because cows move from stable to pasture and
vice versa, depending on the season and the weather and will thus vary their diet from grass to hay and/or
supplemental fodder. As far as the nitrogen content of the feed for each type of pig and chicken category, it
was initially assumed that the nitrogen content does not vary significantly across The Netherlands. Later it
was found that this assumption was incorrect (Steenvoorden et al., 1999). For example, if feed statistics
from large operations ("integrators") are used across the board, nitrogen efficiency may be over-estimated.
This is because large operations are more likely to make optimum use of feed and the nitrogen contained
therein, whereas smaller operations may be less efficient. Also, certain farms may use feed of different
quality that could influence the nitrogen content of the animal manure.
An important step to ensure the quality and increase acceptance of the Dutch model, was to reach consensus
among scientists and stakeholders on manure and urine excretion data. Four factors are important in
excretion calculations: the amount of ingested feed, the mineral concentrations in the feed, the amount of
animal products (eggs, milk, and meat), and the mineral concentrations in these products (Van der Hoek,
1994). For NH3 emissions work, only nitrogen compound concentrations are of concern.13
Animals within a certain category may not receive the same feed and produce manure of the same
composition. For example, manure from boars or gestating sows will have different characteristics than that
of finisher pigs. In the Dutch system, excretions from these smaller swine categories are normalized to
finisher pigs, whereas feed intake and excretions of farrows are included with the lactating sows.
In the Dutch model, it is further assumed that the composition of feces and urine do not differ between day
and night. The accuracy of this assumption would depend on differences in temperature, humidity, and wind
from day to night, as well as feeding patterns. Pigs and poultry are typically in life-long confinement, but for
cows on feedlots, it is necessary to determine what part of manure and urine is excreted in the stable and in
pasture. Ammonia emissions per cow are lower for free-range cows compared to confined cows, because the
urine can be absorbed by the soil, and there is less contact between urine and the manure which contains the
urease.
13 Mass balances may also be applied for other minerals, such as phosphorus, potassium, and copper. Tracking
these elements may prove to be beneficial for soil quality monitoring or other purposes.
31D
-------
Below, two examples are included to calculate nitrogen excretion for a finisher pig and a lactating sow (1992
data). As noted, similar calculations can also be done for phosphorus, copper, and other minerals.
Example nitrogen excretion calculation for finisher pig:
Feed intake D 2.05 kg/day or
GrowthD 0.717 kg/day or
748 kg/yrD
262 kg/yr (this is the meat production) D
N in feedD
N intake D
N in meatD
N fixation in meatD
N excretion D
26.3gN/kgD
0.0263 x 748 =
23.0gN/kgD
0.023 x 262
19.7-6.0
19.7kgN/yrD
6.0kgN/yr (3 0% of N intake) D
13.7 kg N /yr (70% of N intake) D
Example nitrogen excretion calculation for lactating sow:
Farrows per lactating sowD
Feed intake farrow D
Feed intake all farrows D
Feed intake sowD
Meat production farrows D
N in feed for farrows D
N in feed for sowD
N intake from feedD
N in meatD
N fixation in meatD
N excretion D
20.5 farrows/yrD
30 kg/farrow D
20.5 x30 = 615kg/yrD
1,097 kg/yr D
551 kg/yr (weight of meat of all farrows per year)D
28.4gN/kgD
25.6gN/kgD
(0.0284 x 615) + (0.0256 x 1,097) = 45.6 kgN/yrD
23.0gN/kgD
0.023 x 551 = 12.7 kgN/yr (28% of intake)D
45.6 - 12.7 = 32.9 kg N /yr (72% of intake)D
4.1.2 Emissions From Houses
Some Dutch NH3 emission factors for houses are presented in Table 9. In the last few years, nitrogen
excretion numbers have been modified and better emission factors based on field measurements have been
developed for many different types of houses. The new estimates are included in Table 9 in parentheses and
illustrate the general downward trend in emission factors as a result of improved building and waste
management designs. Significant efforts in control technology development have focused on the design of
32 D
-------
new low-emission houses for all livestock categories. For example, Groot Koerkamp (1998) reported on
field testing of 14 different housing types that were tested in The Netherlands, United Kingdom, Denmark,
and Germany, which was summarized in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 9: Dutch Volatilization Percentages, Nitrogen Excretion and Ammonia Emission Factors for
Cows, Swine, and Poultry in Different Housing Types. (Source: Steenvoorden et al., 1999)
Animal type
Dairy
Cattle
Finishing pigs
Breeding pigs
Chickens (layers)
Chickens (broilers)
Housing type
Standard
Confined housing
Low emission
Standard
Low emission
Standard, fully slatted
Standard, partially slatted
Low emission (optimal house
and feed)
Standard
Low emission
Standard (daily scraper)
Standard (deep-pit)
Floor with litter
Low emission
Standard
Low emission
Volatilization
(%)
14.6 (9.4) D'c
7.1 D
9.5
12.6
8.2
19.3
16.1 (15.8-18.3)
13.0(11.9-14.2)
19.5
13.0
8.7
40.5
18.7 (8.3- 20.6)
3.7 (3.5-5.1)
10.6(9.9-11.2)
2.6(6.7-7.4)
N -excretion
kg N/AAP/yr
61. 3a
14.5
29.9
0.70
0.59
Emission Factor
kg NH3/AAP/yr
10.9(5.1 -9.1)a'c
5.3(2.0- 4.5) a
7.1 (5.3- 10.0) a
3.1
2.5(2.2-3.4;
2.1 (1.0-3.0)
7.1 (5.6-10.8)
4.7 (1.6-7.5)
0.07 (0.08)
0.34
0.16(0.05-0.73;
0.03 (0.01 - 0.03)
0.08
0.02(0.005-0.014)
Based on 190-day period;
Based on 365-day period; and_
Data from additional, new research are included in parentheses. _
The NH3 emission factors in Table 9 are not the official Dutch emission factors. A comprehensive list of
official emission factors was published by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister responsible for the
Environment in the Staatscourant14 of December 16, 1998. This publication includes six pages of emission
factors for all livestock categories. For pigs, there are official emission factors for 83 different subcategories
for different types of pigs being held in different types of houses: traditional houses and various Green
14 Compare to Federal Register.
33 D
-------
Label houses.15 For example, in The Netherlands, finisher pigs are usually kept in pens on partially slatted
floors. Gestating sows are kept in individual boxes with also a partially slatted floor. Lactating sows
(mothers with piglets) are confined on totally slatted floors. Steenvoorden et al. (1999) comment that
emissions per animal can vary significantly even for animals in the same type of house, although no ranges
were provided.
The standard livestock management method in The Netherlands for layers (egg laying chickens) is rows of
cages with the manure being removed by conveyors. Broilers are typically kept on floors with litter. There
are significant differences between recommended NH3 emission factors and those from more recent research
as is indicated in Table 9. Dairy cattle are out in pasture during the warmer half of the year. In winter, the
animals are kept in stables and can move about freely. The central walkway is slatted, whereas the bedding
area is not. Recent volatilization and NH3 estimates indicate that the currently used numbers are too high, as
was indicated earlier in Table 9 (Steenvoorden et al., 1999).
4.1.3 Emissions From Swine Waste Storage
In The Netherlands, swine waste is typically stored in concrete storage basins. There are various collection
systems for scraping and/or flushing of waste from the house. Lagoons are not used for several reasons,
including limited space and high groundwater tables. As a result, the water that is used for flushing does not
contain nitrogen. The storage basins are comparable to those found in older systems in the Midwestern U.S.
Waste in these types of storage basins is significantly more concentrated than in lagoons. It is not
recommended to apply Dutch NH3 emission factors for manure storage to lagoons in North Carolina or
elsewhere in the U.S.
In The Netherlands, in 1989 and 1990, "standard" emission factors were defined for NH3 emissions from
waste storage for all animal categories (see Table 10). These emission factors take into account calculated
and actual storage periods (residence times) and account for storage covers, which were being introduced at
that time. The control efficiency for "complete" coverage of a standard Dutch storage tank was determined
to be 80%, implying there is still a significant amount of leakage.
15 A concept that has recently been introduced in The Netherlands is the "Green Label," which is a kind of verification
approach of best management practices incorporated by farmers, animal house builders, and other stakeholders.
This program has helped to encourage the design and incorporation of new low-emission housing systems. The
Green Label concept is also being applied to other industries.
34 D
-------
Table 10: Standard Emission Factors for Open Storage Basins in The Netherlands
Dairy cattle (while housed during winter)
Beef cattle (while housed during winter)
Finishing pigs
Farrowing sows
Broilers
Layers (cages)
Layers (cages, mechanical drying)
Layers (deep pit)
Layers (litter)
Emission Factor3
(g NH3 - N/yr/AAP)
3,460
850
1,000
3,250
12
100
41
20
20
These emission factors take into account standard and actual storage periods
(residence times) and are corrected for duration and multiplied with a control
effectiveness coefficient; e.g., for fitted for storage covers.
The emission factor to estimate NH3 emissions from storage tanks for a certain region is:
EF = SEO x AST/SST x [CS x (100 - CE) + (100 - CS)] g NH3-N per AAP per year,
where:
SEO = standard emission open storage, g NH3-N/yr/AAPD
AST = actual storage time, months D
SST = standard storage time (6 months) D
CS = percent of covered storage basins D
CE = control efficiency for covered storage (80%) _
Example calculation emissions from swine waste storage :D
Actual storage time for finisher pig manure is 3 months; the standard emission factor is 1,000 g NH3-ND
/year/AAP (from Table 10); 75% of farms in the specified geographical region have storage basins that areD
covered. Hence, EF= 1,000 x 3/6 x [75% x (100-80)% + (100-75)%] = 200 g NH3-N per AAP perD
year. D
Volatilization factors for animal waste storage: D
Steenvoorden et al. (1999) includes another approach to estimating emissions from storage basins usingD
volatilization percentages of nitrogen in stored manure. Volatilization percentages are provided for covered D
storage facilities for dairy cattle, finisher pigs, farrowing sows, and layers and are 0.96, 1.66, 2.36, andD
2.57%, respectively. According to Steenvoorden there is sparse literature on NH3 emissions from manure D
storage facilities. Williams and Nigro (1997) in Steenvoorden et al. (1999) reported an NH3 emission rate ofD
2.3 grams per square meter (g/m2) per day for an uncovered beef cattle manure storage site at 4 °C, whichD
35 D
-------
climbed to 8.8 g/m2 per day at 25 °C. Van der Meer (1991) in Steenvoorden et al. (1999) provided oneD
additional generic number for beef cattle: 5 kg NH3 N/year/animal. Sommer et al. (1993) conducted large-D
scale pilot tests and found rates of 3 to 5 g NH3 - N/m2/day for uncovered cattle and pig waste stored in openD
tanks, which were stirred once a week to prevent a crust from forming. D
4.1.4 Emissions from Waste Application D
In the Dutch system, the NH3 emissions from animal waste application are expressed as a percentage of D
volatilized nitrogen in the animal waste. Nitrogen in animal waste can be classified as either organicD
nitrogen or mineral nitrogen, which can easily volatilize as NH3. Mineral nitrogen is between 45 and 50% ofD
total nitrogen in swine waste. Emissions field tests for different types of soil, with and without grass D
vegetation, were conducted in the late 1980s using micrometeorology and a mass balance approach. In theD
early 1990s, regulations were introduced that limit land application by spraying or spreading without further D
management of the soil. Most manure is now injected or applied to soil that is tilled within a short time D
frame; e.g., within 24 hours. D
Initially, NH3 emissions from land application16 with rotating disc spreader were determined to be betweenD
35 and 50% of mineral nitrogen (Van der Hoek, 1994). During more recent field measurements, higher D
volatilization percentages were found; e.g., 68% with very broad ranges (Steenvoorden et al., 1999). ThisD
value is somewhat higher than those reported in Paul (1997)17. One reason for the discrepancy may be that, D
due to currently existing regulations, more manure is spread during the spring and summer months, when theD
air temperatures are higher. Steenvoorden et al. (1999) reiterates that NH3 volatilization during landD
application is strongly dependent on the weather at the time of application. Table 11 includes estimated andD
measured volatilization percentages for mineral (NH3) nitrogen during land application of manure. D
16 When the manure is not injected, land application (spreading) in The Netherlands is conducted by a spray system
(rotating disc) that is placed behind a tanker trailer pulled by a tractor. Manure from the storage tank is spread
fairly close to the ground. There are two other differences with the North Carolina situation: (1) in North Carolina,
lagoon effluent is spread, as opposed to the more concentrated, fresher manure; and (2) in North Carolina, the
effluent is sprayed higher into the air to maximize volatilization.
17 Paul (1997) reported that NHs volatilization from pig houses was 37 to 40% of excreted N.
36D
-------
Table 11: Calculated and Measured Ammonia Volatilization Percentages During Land Application
of Manure3 in Western Europe (Source: Steenvoorden et al., 1999)
Technique
Grass land
spreading
injection
Bare soil
spreading
injection
spreading with
immediate tilling
spreading with
tilling after 1 day
Calculated
Volatilization (%)
50
5
50
N/a
15
36
Measured
Volatilization b c (%)
68
1
68
9
20
N/a
Volatilization
Ranges (%)
27-98
0-3
20-100
0-40
1 -49
N/a
Number of
Measurements
47
6
29
9
28
N/a
Not the same as lagoon effluent.
Percent of total ammoniacal nitrogen.
Measurements taken in spring, summer, and early fall.
4.1.5 Limitations to Mass Balance Approach
There are general limitations to the nitrogen balance approach. Inaccuracies in sampling of manure or litter,
and inaccuracies in determining their nitrogen content can lead to inaccuracies in estimates of NH3 losses.
Although the mass balance method is universally accepted for most animal types, it may be best suited for
poultry, because poultry feeding habits are fairly consistent (Van der Hoek, 1999). Improvements in the
accuracy of nitrogen excretion calculations will influence the complete chain of NH3 emission calculations.
If the amount of nitrogen that is excreted is increased or reduced, more or less nitrogen is available for
volatilization from the entire array of sources (house, storage, lagoon, spray field).
The NH3 emissions from houses are calculated using the total nitrogen quantity in animal manure.
Ammonia, however, is created from the breakdown of urea for mammals (or uric acids for poultry) and any
mineral nitrogen (NH4+ compounds) in the feces. Only during storage or long-term presence of waste in the
barn would organically bound nitrogen also be broken down to NH3. In general, measures to decrease the
urine nitrogen content, as opposed to the nitrogen content in feces, will lower NH3 emissions, because of the
slower reactions in the manure. Nevertheless, environmental parameters (see Section 1.2) may nullify any
NH3 control measures resulting from the feed, and it is important to review the complete interdependent
nitrogen chain from feed to land application, including sludge handling (Steenvoorden et al., 1999, p. 33).
Another limitation of the Dutch mass balance method described above is that, in its current form, it is not
equipped to address the loop that is induced by the use of NH3-laden lagoon water to flush and fill the pit
37D
-------
under houses, as occurs in North Carolina in pull-plug houses. Lagoon water remains in the pit for up to a
week, depending on the flushing cycle. As was indicated in Section 3.1, Harris (2001) found that the
recycled lagoon water used to flush the pit below the barn floor provides a baseline emission source that
contributes a significant portion of the barn emissions. In a mass balance approach for a pull-plug house,
this additional source of nitrogen will have to be addressed. The situation at Farm 10 may be described as a
hybrid system from a mass balance perspective, because the flushing water does not stay in the pit, but is
directly returned to the lagoon by force of gravity. See Figure 4. It may be that in a flush-type house
additional emissions from the recycled water are small compared to emissions from the fresh pig waste. In
that case the Dutch mass balance approach may be appropriate for this type of farm. The method may also
be useful as an emission estimation tool in the discussion of closing lagoons and alternative waste treatment
methods.
Another omission in the mass balance approach is the potential NH3 emissions from sludge treatment or
spreading. In the Dutch system, the manure is spread entirely; whereas, in the North Carolina system only
the lagoon effluent is spread, while the sludge continues to collect in the lagoon. This sludge will have to be
treated or land-applied when the lagoon reaches its sludge holding capacity.
38D
-------
House
'
"I
Dutch System X
X
N.C. Pull-plug System
Lagoon 4 Spray field X
.C. Flush-type System (Farm 10)
Nitrogen flow
NH3 to air emissions
Figure 4. Nitrogen Flows in Dutch and North Carolina Systems
39D
-------
5 COMPARISON AND DISCUSSION
To date, the most complete U.S. data set of NH3 emissions based on field measurements from a full-scaleD
swine farm is that of the North Carolina farm, "Farm 10" (see Section 3). In this section, the Farm 10D
emission rates are compared with estimates based on the mass balance method as discussed in Section 4.0. D
Because, finishing pigs are the most significant sub-source category, and emissions from finishing pigD
houses only were collected at Farm 10, the finishing pig population was used as a base for the comparisons. D
Because no field tests were conducted at the farm's spray fields, an attempt is made to estimate these D
emissions based on volatilization percentages from the literature. Emission factors based on Farm 10 fieldD
test results are further compared to emission factors from the literature. D
The total swine population at Farm 10 at the time of the field tests consisted of 7,480 finishers, 1,212 sowsD
and boars, and 1,410 piglets; average weights are 135 Ib (61.4 kg), 400 Ib (181.8 kg), and 25 Ib (11.4 kg),D
respectively. The total Farm 10 live weight was 1,529,850 Ib (695,386 kg), and the average animal weightD
was 15 lib (69 kg). D
5.1 MASS BALANCE APPLICATION D
5.1.1 Simple Total Mass Balance D
A simple estimate of NH3 emissions can be based on average manure production values, manure nitrogen D
contents, and number of pigs. Barker (1998) provides values for average manure production by finishingD
pigs and the ammoniated nitrogen content thereof. Using a mean value of 11.1 Ib of fresh manure per 13 5 D
Ib finishing pig per day, 12.2 Ib TKN per ton of manure, ammoniated nitrogen of 62% of TKN, and aD
farm population of 7,480 finishing pigs, we can arrive at an ammoniated nitrogen value of 143 kg per dayD
for this finishing operation (see Table 12). D
Much of this report, including the current section, was written from the point of view of a feeder-to-finish D
operation, which represents the majority of farms in North Carolina. However, the numbers calculatedD
here and used to estimate emissions from spray fields, are specific to Farm 10, a farrow-to-finish D
operation. As such, we present the calculations for both the total farm and the feeder-to-finish part of the D
operation. Table 12 presents these additional estimates. Sows and boars are treated on the basis of D
weight ratio to 135 Ib finishers (a factor of 3), and piglets are ignored due to their small population andD
small weight ratio relative to finishers. Finally, there is some disagreement as to the use of the 62% D
factor. This was discussed with Dr. Barker of North Carolina State University (NCSU). Dr. Barker saidD
40 D
-------
that the "NH3-N as a fraction of TKN" factor represents inorganic NH3. He also agreed that it does
include urea present in the urine. As such, it is an appropriate factor to apply when examining the houses
in Section 5.2 (Barker, 2001). At the same time, it is unclear that any other factor is more defensible.
After a literature search and discussions with NCSU, we have not found any other factor with a citable
reference. Therefore, the best we can do at this time is to regard the 62% factor as a lower limit and
100% as an upper limit.
Table 12. Total Nitrogen Content of Waste Production at Farm 10 (as NH3-N)
NH3-N/TKN
fraction
0.62
0.62
1.00
1.00
Operation
Feed to finish
Total farm
Feed to finish
Total farm
Animals present
Sows & boars
1,212
1,212
Finishers
7,480
7,480
7,480
7,480
Piglets
1,410
1,410
Kg NHs-N/day
143
211
230
340
5.1.2 Mass Balance Based on Dutch Model D
The Dutch NH3 emission methodology (see Section 4) is based on the average yearly nitrogen excretion D
per animal and the different emission or volatilization factors from specific emission sources; i.e., house, D
storage/treatment, and land application. The nitrogen excretion is the difference between the nitrogen thatD
is ingested by the animal and the nitrogen that is ultimately bound in the agricultural product. There are D
numerous Dutch volatilization factors that have been determined for different animals, animal houses, D
waste storage/treatment systems, and land application situations (Staatscourant, 1998).18 According toD
this source, the volatilization rates best matching a standard North Carolina swine house and lagoon areD
15 and 15%, respectively. D
The mass balance approach cannot be applied beyond the lagoon, because insufficient information exists D
about the amount and type of nitrogen that is stored in the sludge, escapes in the groundwater, or isD
emitted as nitrogen gas. When conducting a mass balance approach as illustrated here, the nitrogenD
content of the feed must be well known. According to Van Kempen (1999), the average feed for NorthD
Carolina finishing pigs has a nitrogen content of 2.99%; whereas, the average intake is 1.54 kg/day. If weD
assume an average animal presence of 96%, we can arrive at a total N intake of 16.16 kg N/animal/year. D
The average N excretion is 69%. Accordingly, the nitrogen mass balance for a pig at a theoretical feeder-D
to-fmish farm is: D
Compare to Federal Register.
41D
-------
Input: 16.16 kg N per average animal present (AAP)/year
N excretion: 69%
Excretion: 11.15 kg N per AAP/year.
Volatilization from house: 15%
Emission: 1.7 kg N per AAP per year ( or 2.1 kg NH3 per AAP/year)
N to lagoon: 9.5 kg N per AAP per year
Volatilization from lagoon: 15%
Emission from lagoon: 1.4 kg N per AAP per year (or 1.7 kg NH3 per AAP/year).
The above emission factors are for finisher pigs. Sows and boars are about 3 times as heavy as average
finisher pigs. (The piglets are ignored, because their reported weight is only 25 Ib each.) Consequently,
the emissions for Farm 10 based on the Dutch mass balance system are:
House (finishers): 2.1 x 7,480 = 15,708 kg NH3 per year or 43 kg per day,
House (all pigs): (2.1 x 7,480)+ (2.1 x3 x 1,212) = 23,344 kg NH3 per year or 64 kg per day, and
Lagoon (all pigs): (1.7 x 7,480) + (1.7 x 3 x 1,212) = 18,897 kg NH3 per year or 52 kg per day.
The above calculation does not reflect the different feed that sows and boars typically receive, compared
to finisher pigs. The 15% volatilization rate for houses, which was used here, is lower than most values
found in the literature. (Some volatilization rates as reported in Section 2 are as high as 43%.)
Furthermore, higher average temperatures in North Carolina, especially during the summer, may
contribute to significantly higher emissions from the houses. Thus, the above emission factor for the
house may be biased low. Also, the waste management system in the houses at Farm 10 is not truly
representative of North Carolina practices. It is a flush-type system where the waste is assumed to be
flushed to the lagoon every 8 hours (actually every 4 hours per half house). With a flush-type system,
emissions from the house may be less (compared to a pull-plug system) because waste is removed more
often. In a pull-plug system, waste is kept under a layer of water under the floor and flushed regularly;
e.g., once a week. More frequent flushing of the houses would likely result in lower emissions from the
houses but higher emissions from the lagoon and/or spray field. In addition, there are other more general
limitations to the mass balance approach, which were discussed in Section 3.
42 D
-------
5.2 EMISSIONS FROM HOUSES D
Harris and Thompson (1998) reported an emission factor for finisher houses at Farm 10 of 3.69 kg NH3/D
pig/year (see Section 3.1). This value may be compared to the emission factor of 4.31 kg/finisher pig/year D
which was reported by Harris (2001) who measured emissions at swine confinement buildings at other D
North Carolina farms. Applying both emission factors to the finisher pig population at Farm 10, results inD
NH3 emission rates of 76 and 88 kg/day for Harris and Thompson (1998) and Harris (2001), respectively. D
For comparison, the European Community emission factor for emissions from houses is 2.9 g perD
finishing pig per day (from Figure 3), resulting in a rate of 59 kg/day for Farm 10. Also, Groot KoerkampD
(1998) includes emission factors for different houses (finishing pigs, slat floors) for four EuropeanD
countries (see Table 2). Paul (1997) estimated an emission factor of 4.6 to 7.0 mg N/hour/kg live weightD
for a swine house in Ontario, which also can be used to calculate a number for Farm 10 based on pigD
population and live weight. (When converting the Paul number, it is assumed that there are no diurnal D
effects on emissions.) Table 13 summarizes different estimates of emission rates standardized for finisherD
houses at Farm 10 based on emission factors from the aforementioned sources. The emission rates foundD
by Harris and Thompson (1998) and Harris (2001) are somewhat higher than those found by the otherD
North European and Canadian researchers. Most likely, this is due to differences in temperature, as wellD
as in ventilation and waste management, and possibly feed. D
Table 13: Ammonia Emission Rates for Finisher Houses at Farm 10
Researcher
Source
Emissions from houses
(kg NH3/day)
Harris & Thompson, 1998
Harris, 2001
Based on measurements in
North Carolina
76
88
VanderHoek, 1998
Groot Koerkamp et al., 1998
(English houses)
Groot Koerkamp et al., 1998
(Dutch houses)
Groot Koerkamp et al., 1998
(Danish houses)
Groot Koerkamp et al., 1998
(German houses)
Paul, 1997 (Canadian house)
Adopted from literature,
based on European and
Canadian emission factors
59
33
69
58
55
64 + 13
43 D
-------
5.3 EMISSIONS FROM LAGOONS
Over a period of a year, the lagoon at Farm 10 was sampled by three research groups. Table 14 presents
the reported NH3 emission rates for the lagoon at Farm 10, as well as the adjusted values for finishing
pigs only. As mentioned, Farm 10 had 7,480 finisher pigs, 1,212 sows and boars, and 1,410 piglets. As
mentioned, sows, boars, are about 3 times as heavy as average finisher pigs. If we assume that sows,
boars, and finisher pigs produce the same amount of nitrogen in their waste, 33% of the nitrogen in the
lagoon comes from the sows and boars. This is a simplification, because waste especially from sows may
be more nitrogen-rich than waste from other pigs.
Table 14: Ammonia Emission Rates for the Lagoon at Farm 10
Researcher
Anejaetal., 2000
Harper & Sharpe, 1998
Todd, 1999
Average Aneja and Harper & Sharpe
Emissions from lagoon3
(kg N Ha/day)
66.8
31.3
(165) D
49
Emissions from lagoon,
finishers only (kg NH3/day)
45
21
No data available
33
See Table 8.
b Rejected (see below).
The value of 165 kg per day from Todd is rejected at this time, because it is greater than the entire farm
mass balance calculated from the nitrogen excretion values. Similarly, it is greater than the sum of the
house and lagoon estimates calculated by the mass balance methodology. Averaging the results from
Aneja and Harper & Sharpe one can arrive at a lagoon emission factor of 49 kg per day for all pigs and 33
kg/day for finishers only. Per finisher, the NH3 emission factor is 4.4 g/day or 1.6 kg/yr.
5.4 EMISSIONS FROM SPRAY FIELDS
No field tests on spray application were conducted as part of the studies at Farm 10. However, at a farm
in Georgia, Sharpe and Harper (1997) used a micrometeorology method to determine emissions from a
sprayed oats field of 12 hectares. Applied was 45 kg NH3-N per hectare during three spraying events, 4.7
and 20.3 kg of which was volatilized during application and post-application, respectively. This translates
into a volatilization factor of 56%.
The literature suggests a general NH3 volatilization rate of about 50% in lagoon effluent (see Section 2.1),
which is also in line with guidelines from the Dutch Mass Balance Methodology (see Table 11). This rate
would include emissions during and after spraying. No distinction is made here between emissions from
grass or crop land or tilled soil. Use of this rate requires lagoon effluent volumes and NH3 concentration
44 D
-------
data, but unfortunately, these parameters were not determined during the Farm 10 field tests. Some total
N values for Farm 10 lagoon liquid exist, but no effluent/spray field flow rates were recorded.
We may approach the spray field emissions as the difference between the total Farm 10 NH3 mass balance
and the emission rates determined during the studies for the house and lagoon operations. Using the
simple mass balance emissions rate for the finisher population of 143 kg/day, a house rate of 76 kg per
day, and the lagoon rate of 33 kg per day, we arrive at a residue of: 143 - 76 - 33 = 34 kg applied NH3
per day or 12,410 kg/year. Assuming that the Georgia emission factor of 56% is representative of the
Farm 10 situation, we can estimate spray field emissions at 19 kg/day or 6,950 kg per year. It must be
recognized that spraying operations happen as relatively few events per year. As such, spraying events
could be very significant during the actual spraying operations and the several days following.
5.5 DISCUSSION
Table 15 summarizes NH3 emission rates from houses, lagoon, and spray field for Farm 10, as well as the
overall rate from a mass balance approach. The emission rates for the houses in Table 15 calculated by
various methods show good agreement and suggest that the houses are a more significant source than
previously thought. The emission rate from the Dutch mass balance approach for finishing houses is lower
than those of the field tests, but this may likely be due to the low volatilization percentage that was used in
the mass balance computation. Consequently, it is believed that there is enough basis to recommend an
emission factor for average finisher pigs for houses based on the Harris and Thompson (1998) number,
which is 3.7 ± 1.0 kg NH3/year/finisher pig (60 + 10 g NH3/kg live weight/year). This value is supported by
the 4.3 kg NH3/year/fmisher pig reported by Harris (2001) for other farms. The emission factor does not
account for differences in feed, ambient temperature due to seasons, house construction, or in-house waste
management. Nor does it account for mortality and vacancy. The significance of each of these parameters
may be a topic for research in the future. It is suggested that the live weight number be adopted for other pig
categories, until more accurate field data become available for separate categories.
45 D
-------
Table 15: Summary of Farm 10 Ammonia Emission Rates
From
Entire farm
Houses
Lagoon
Spray fields
Activity basis
Finishers only
All pigs
Finishers only
All pigs
Finishers only
Finishers only
Generic pigs
Finishers
Generic pigs
All pigs
All pigs
All pigs
All pigs
Finishers only
Finishers only
All pigs
Emissions
(kg NH3/day)
143
211
43
64
76
88
59
33-69
64
52
67
31
49
33
19
28
Method
Simple mass balance
Simple mass balance
(scaled up from
finishers only)
Dutch mass balance
Dutch mass balance
(scaled up from
finishers only)
OPFTIR field test
OPFTIR field test
Literature
Literature
Literature
Dutch mass balance
Flux chamber field test
Micromet field test
Source
ARCADIS (this report)
ARCADIS (this report)
ARCADIS (this report)
ARCADIS (this report)
Harris & Thompson,
1998
Harris, 2001
VanderHoek, 1998
Groot Koerkamp, 1998
Paul, 1997
ARCADIS (this report)
Aneja, etal., 2000
Harper & Sharpe, 1998
Average Aneja, et al. (2000) and Harper &
Sharpe(1 998)
Average. (Scaled down from all pigs)
Simple mass balance
Simple mass balance
ARCADIS (this report)
ARCADIS (this report)
There is surprising similarity between the field test results for the lagoon (average 49 kg/day) with the
number calculated by the mass balance method, which was 52 kg/day. Both numbers are for the total swine
population. Using an average emission rate of 50 kg/day, the suggested annual emission factor for NH3
emissions from a swine farm lagoon in North Carolina becomes 26 g/kg live weight/year. This lagoon
emission factor does not take vacancy and mortality into account, nor does it address differences in lagoon
characteristics, such as pH, or climatological factors, such as temperature, rain, and wind. Additional study
of lagoons aimed at enhancing understanding of nitrogen pathways (e.g., to sludge or to N2) will assist in
further developing a comprehensive mass balance.
By applying the simple mass balance method, spray field emissions at Farm 10 were estimated at 19 kg/day
or 6,950 kg per year. This reflects emissions from finishers (61.4 kg) only. As was indicated earlier, this
number constitutes a rough guess. The calculations in this section suggest that spray field operations are a
small but significant fraction of total farm emissions. But, since spraying is limited to certain seasons and
certain hours of the day, it is likely that these spray operations are quite significant during the actual events.
46 D
-------
(Spraying is prohibited in winter and is limited to a few hours per day during summer, because of labor
constraints.) This fact is of importance when determining control technologies.
The total of emissions for finishing pigs from Farm 10 is 128 kg/day or 102 g NH3/kg live weight/year, based
on the emissions from houses (76 kg/day), lagoon (33 kg/day), and assumed spray application (19 kg/day).
The 128 kg/day number compares well to the number established in Section 5.1.1 by the simple total mass
balance (143 kg/day). Therefore, it can be concluded that a mass balance approach can be useful in
estimating NH3 emissions from swine farms, especially those that do not employ pull-plug waste flushing
technology (see Section 4.1.5).
The average weight of the swine at Farm 10 is 69 kg. If we assume that this swine population reflects a self-
sustaining population, in other words, is similar to the average swine population in North Carolina, we can
arrive at an emission factor of 7 kg NH3/animal/year (using the 102 g NH3/kg live weight/year number).
This emission factor is a generic emission factor mainly based on field data for two farms in North Carolina
for houses and one farm for lagoons. The spray field component was calculated using a simple mass balance
approach based on nitrogen feed intake. This emission factor is comparable to other generic emission factors
from the literature (Table 16). The three European emission factors in Table 16 are all somewhat lower than
the North Carolina emission factor. The difference may be a result of numerous factors, including but not
limited to different animal waste handling practices (use of lagoons and flushing with lagoon water) and
lower average ambient temperatures. If we take the Bouwman and Van der Hoek (1997) emission factor (5
kg/animal/year) as a lower boundary, we may possibly suggest a range for the North Carolina emission
factor of ± 2 kg/animal/year.
47 D
-------
Table 16: Comparison of Ammonia Emission Factors for Swine
Battyeetal., 1994
Asman, 2001
Bouwman & Van der
Hoek, 1997C
VanderHoek, 1998;
EMEP/CORINAIR
This report, based on
theoretical spray field
limited field tests and
emissions estimation.
NH3 Emission Factor
(kg per animal per year)
9.21a'D
5.4
4.8
6.39
7
This number is now apparently considered to be a misinterpretation. The initial swine
number used in Battye was 8.5 instead of 5.4 and, as such, the value from Battye et al.
(1994) is likely to be biased high (Asman, 2001, personal communication).
Decimals have been added for the purpose of tracking the source of the data and
should not be construed as representing accuracy.
Calculated.
5.6
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
Recommendations for additional data collection are presented below. It must be emphasized that emission
rates from the different sub-sources (house, waste storage, spray field) at one farm are interrelated. Changes
in animal management (e.g., feed at the head of the chain) will affect emissions, not only in the house, but
also from the lagoon and, ultimately, from the spray field. As such, field test campaigns should be inclusive
of all data sources.
As a first step, an inventory should be made of different houses and waste management practices for
swine operations in the U.S. This inventory should have the same operational, spatial, and temporal
detail as the animal categories collected by USDA, U.S. Statistical Abstracts, etc. The mass balance
presented in this report can be important in identifying parameters that are likely to influence
emissions and to what extent. It is important to include information on uncertainties in these
parameters from the start.
Because the emission estimates that are reflected in this report are from a specialized operation
(farrow-to-finish with flush-type waste management), it is recommended that the complete series of
measurements be repeated at a "standard" feeder-to-finish farm with a pull-plug system.
If other animal categories (e.g.; turkeys or cattle) are of interest, the same should be done for these
categories.
In this report, spray field emissions were computed indirectly. It is of primary importance that valid
48 D
-------
data be collected to characterize this remaining source of fugitive emissions. To provide a cohesive
data set, it may be necessary that the barn and lagoon emissions be characterized during the same
field study.
A field test program involving the collection of data during and after field application is suggested.
The development of a methodology that can relate the spray field emissions to animals present or
live weight should be part of any field test program. The best approach to field-testing is to use
scanning OP-FTIR with a vertical, 2-D optical plane downwind of a spraying operation. The
acquired data represent the effluent plume as a sparse matrix. In combination with meteorological
data, computerized tomography techniques are used to smooth the plume and calculate the emission
rate. This experiment should be continued post-spraying. Required ancillary data for the generation
of emission rate and its conversion to emission factor would include meteorological data, lagoon
liquor ammoniated nitrogen concentration, time of spraying, pumping rate, cumulative animal
population, and cumulative live weight. It is important to recognize that the lagoon represents the
cumulative population rather than merely the current population. If available, a scanning tunable
diode laser (TDL) spectrometer could be used in preference to the FTIR. A TDL offers faster
operation.
A relatively short and simple paper study could provide an independent check on the spray field
calculations performed in this report, if additional pertinent data from the period of the North
Carolina studies could be retrieved. Lagoon ammonium concentration, spraying events occurring
during the study period, and spray volume(s) (data that must be maintained by farm management)
could be used in concert with the literature volatilization rate of 56% to provide a "sanity" check on
the difference calculations used in this report.
Before field tests for spray fields are planned, a brief literature survey of older pre-1994 emissions
studies from Europe and the U.S. could be useful. It is assumed that older European studies are
available from before the time (around 1990) that spraying was discouraged in favor of low-
emission technologies. This literature survey could be expanded to include the historical
motivations to reduce spraying in favor of injection or other methods and the resulting emissions
reductions.
It may be worthwhile to conduct an experiment with two different tracers at a lagoon: one tracer
that is dissolved in the lagoon water and another that is released in the air. In this way one could get
an impression of the exchange process across the air/water interface as well as from the emissions
that are released from lagoon water that is being used for flushing the house.
As yet, not much thought appears to have been given to the fate of lagoons and lagoon sludge.
49 D
-------
Nitrogen compound release as a result of lagoon sludge spreading is of interest.
It might be worthwhile to consider which ecosystems are most susceptible to damage from direct
NH3 deposition. The NH3 fluxes into and out of such an area can be measured using passive open-
path Fourier transform infrared (OP-FTIR), possibly by making use of an airship. The approach
suggested here applies airborne, down-looking, passive OP-FTIR to collect NH3 path-integrated
concentration data with the ground as the infrared radiation source. This will directly provide the
plane-integrated concentration in a vertical cross-section beneath the route of the platform flight.
Flying downwind from large NH3 area sources like hog farms will allow the estimate of the total
NH3 emission flux.
50D
-------
6 REFERENCES
Aarnink, A.J.A. 1997. Ammonia emission from houses for growing pigs as affected by pen design, indoor
climate and behavior. Kok-Lyra Publishers, Kampen, The Netherlands. ISBN 90-5485-662-9
AEIG. 1998. Atmospheric Emission Inventory Guidebook, Technical Report, No. 30, Second Edition.
Chapter: "Agriculture and Forestry, Manure Management." Mclnnes ed. EMEP/CORINAIR. European
Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark. Available at: http://reports.eea.eu.int/EMEPCORINAIR
Aneja, V.P., J.P. Chauhan, and J.T. Walker. 2000. Characterization of Atmospheric Ammonia Emissions
from Swine Waste Storage and Treatment Lagoons. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 105, No. D9, pp.
11,535-11,545. May 16,2000.
Asman, W.A.H. 1992. Ammonia emission in Europe: updated emission and emission variations. Report
228471008. Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. May 1992.
Asman, W.A.H. 2001. Personal communication W. Asman, National Environmental Research Institute,
Roskilde, Denmark, with M. Doom, ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
Barker, J.C. 1998. Personal communication J. Barker, NCSU, Biological and Agricultural Engineering
Department, Raleigh, NC, with M. Doom and D. Liles, ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
Barker, J.C. 2001. Personal communication J. Barker, NCSU, Biological and Agricultural Engineering
Department, Raleigh, NC, with D. Natschke, ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
Battye, R., W. Battye, C. Overcash, and S. Fudge. 1994. Development and Selection of Ammonia Emission
Factors. Produced for EPA/Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory. Research
Triangle Park, NC.
Bouwman, A.F., D.S. Lee, W.A.H. Asman, F.J. Dentener, K.W. Van der Hoek, and G.J. Olivier. 1997. A
Global High-Resolution Emissions Inventory for Ammonia. Global Biochemical Cycles, Vol. 11, No. 4. pp.
561-587. December 1997.
Bouwman A.F., and K.W. Van der Hoek. 1997. Scenarios of Animal Waste Production and Fertilizer Use
and Associated Ammonia Emission for the Developing Countries. Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 31, No.
24, pp. 4095-4102.
Cowling, E.B., J.W. Erisman, S.M. Smeulders, S.C. Holman, and B.M. Nicholson. 1998. Optimizing air
quality management in Europe and North America: Justification for integrated management of both oxidized
and reduced forms of nitrogen. Environmental Pollution, 102, SI. pp. 599-608.
Demmers, T.G.M., L.R Burgess, J.L. Short, V.R Phillips, J.A. Clark, and C.M. Wathes. 1999. Ammonia
emissions from two mechanically ventilated UK livestock buildings. Atmospheric Environment, 33, 217-
227.
Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G., J.H.M. Metz, G.H. Uenk, V.R. Phillips, M.R Holden, RW. Sneath, J.L. Short,
R.P. White, J. Hartung, J. Seedorf, M. Schroder, K.H. Linkert, S. Pedersen, H. Takai, J.O. Johnson, and
C.M. Wathes. 1998. Concentrations and Emissions of Ammonia in Livestock Buildings in Northern
Europe. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, No. 70, pp. 79-95.
51D
-------
Harper, L.A., and R.R. Sharpe. 1998. Ammonia Emissions from Swine Lagoons in the Southeastern U.S.
Coastal Plains. Southern Piedmont Conservation Agricultural Research Center, Watkinsville, GA.
Submitted to Division of Air Quality, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Raleigh, NC. Final Report. December 1998.
Harris, D.B., and E.L. Thompson, Jr. 1998. Evaluation of Ammonia Emissions from Swine Operations in
North Carolina. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, USEPA. Research Triangle Park, NC.
Presented at Emission Inventory: Living in a Global Environment Symposium. December 8-10, 1998. New
Orleans, LA.
Harris, D.B. 2001. Personal communication B. Harris, EPA/APPCD, Research Triangle Park, NC, with M.
Doom, ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
Hendriks, J., D. Berckmans, and C. Vinckier. 1998. Field tests of bio-additives to reduce ammonia emission
from and ammonia concentration in pig houses. ASHRAE Transactions. SF-98-26-4.
Hoogervorst, N.J.P. 1997. Personal communication N. Hoogervorst, Laboratory of Waste Materials and
Emissions, Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu, Bilthoven, The Netherlands, with P.
Meeuwissen, ARCADIS, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Hutchings, N.J., S.G. Sommer, J.M. Andersen, and W.A.H Asman. 2001. Modeling the Danish Ammonia
Emission. Atmospheric Environment. 35, 1959-1968.
IKC/RTVM. 1995. Dutch Priority Programme on Acidification, Ammonia: The Facts. Secretariat
Additional Programme on Acidification Research. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the
Environment. The Hague, The Netherlands. Report No. 300-06.
Lorimor, J.C. 1999. Ammonia Losses from Broadcast Liquid Manure. Bulletin ASL-R 1597. Iowa State
University, Agriculture & Biosystems Engineering, Ames, IA.
McCulloch, R.B., G. S. Few, G.C. Murray, Jr., and V.P. Aneja. 1998. Analysis of ammonia, ammonium
aerosols and acid gases in the atmosphere at a commercial hog farm in eastern North Carolina, USA.
Environmental Pollution 102, SI (1998), pp. 263-268.
Metcalf& Eddy, Inc. 1991. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment Disposal and Reuse. Third Edition.
McGraw-Hill Book Company. New York, NY. ISBN 0-07-041690-7.
Moal, J.F., J. Martinez, F. Guiziou, and C.M. Coste. 1995. Ammonia volatilization following surface
applied pig and cattle slurry in France. Journal Agric. Science, 125. pp. 245-252.
NCDENR. 1997. Proceedings, Workshop on Atmospheric Nitrogen Compounds. Emissions, Transport,
Transformation, Deposition, and Assessment. George Murray and James Southerland eds. N.C. Department
of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC. March 10-12, 1997.
NCDENR. 1999. Proceedings, Workshop on Atmospheric Nitrogen Compounds II. Emissions, Transport,
Transformation, Deposition, and Assessment. George Murray and James Southerland, eds. N.C.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC. June 7-9, 1999.
52 D
-------
Pain, B.F., T.J. van der Weerden, B.J. Chambers, V.R. Philips, and S.C. Jarvis. 1998. A New Inventory for
Ammonia Emissions from U.K. Agriculture. Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 32, No. 3. pp. 309-313.
Paul, J.W. 1997. Ammonia Emissions During Hog Production in Canada: Cause for Concern? Pacific
Agri-Food Research Centre, Agassiz, BC, Canada VOM 1A. Technical Report # 134. June 1997.
Schlesinger, W.H., and A.E. Hartley, 1992. A Global Budget for Atmospheric Ammonia. Biogeochemistry.
Vol. 15. pp. 191-211.
Sharpe, R.R., and L.A. Harper. 1997. Ammonia and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Sprinkler Irrigation
Applications of Swine Effluent. Journal of Environmental Quality. No. 26, 1703-1706.
Sheldon, B. 2001. Personal communication B. Sheldon, NCSU, Raleigh, NC, with Michiel Doom,
ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc. February 14, 2001.
Sommer, S.G., B.T. Christensen, N.E. Nielsen, and J.K. Schjorring. 1993. Ammonia Volatilization during
Storage of Cattle and Pig Slurry: Effect of Surface Cover. Journal of Agricultural Science, 121, 63-71.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Staatscourant. 1998. nr. 245. p. 20. Redactie Staatscourant. Chr. Plantijnstraat 2, 2515 TZ den Haag, The
Netherlands.
Steenvoorden, J.H.A.M., W.J. Bruins, M.M. van Eerdt, M.W. Hoogeveen, N. Hoogervorst, J.F.M.
Huijsmans, H. Leneman, H.G. van der Meer, G.J. Monteney, and F.J. de Ruiter. 1999. Monitoring van
nationale ammoniakemissies uit de landbouw. Reeks Milieuplanning 6. Dienst Landbouwkundig
Onderzoek, DLO-Staring Centrum. Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Sutton, M.A., C.J. Place, M. Eager, D. Fowler, and R.I. Smith. 1995. Assessment of the magnitude of
ammonia emissions in the United Kingdom. Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 29, No. 12, pp. 1393-1411.
Todd, L. 1999. Site Characterization Using Open Path Fourier Transform Infrared (OP-FTIR)
Spectroscopy. Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, CB 7400, UNC at Chapel Hill,
Chapel Hill, NC. Draft Report.
USEPA. 1997. Deposition of Air Pollutants to the Great Waters, Second Report to Congress. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-453/R-97-011, June 1997.
Van der Hoek, K.W. 1999. Personal communication K. Van der Hoek, Rijksinstituut voor
Volksgezondheid en Milieu, Bilthoven, The Netherlands, with P. Meeuwissen of ARCADIS, Arnhem, The
Netherlands. March 16, 1999.
Van der Hoek, K.W., and S. Couling. 1996. Manure management, SNAP code 100500. In Joint
EMEP/CORINAIR Atmospheric Emission Inventory Guidebook (edited by G. Mclnnes) European
Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Van der Hoek, K.W. 1998. Estimating Ammonia Emission Factors in Europe. Atmospheric Environment,
Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 315-316.
53 D
-------
Van der Hoek, K.W. 1994. Berekeningsmethodiek ammoniakemissie in Nederland voor de jaren 1990,
1991 en 1992. RTVM Report 773004003. Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu, Bilthoven, The
Netherlands.
Van Kempen, T. 1999. Personal communication T. Van Kempen, NCSU, Extension Service, Raleigh, NC,
with M. Doom, ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller. May 3, 1999.
54 D
-------
APPENDIX A. GENERAL ANIMAL FARMING AND ANIMAL WASTE MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES IN THE U.S.
1.0 SWINE FARMING
A typical modern swine farm in the U.S. consists of a number of houses (anywhere from 2 to 10). Waste
storage and treatment usually is by means of an anaerobic lagoon and a spray field. This setup is found
throughout the Southeast and in other States where new farms are built. Older farms in the Midwest may
have a concrete storage basin instead of a lagoon.
The pig houses are flanked by feeding bins, and there usually is a simple structure that serves as equipment
storage and repair shop. Almost all farmers are under contract to a large company that provides pigs, feed,
as well as general and environmental assistance. The farmer, usually does not live on the farm and works the
farm alone or with one helper. For special jobs (e.g., cleaning and disinfection of the houses), contractors
are used. Most farms are feeder-to-finish or farrow-to-finish operations; i.e. they receive pigs weighing 10 -
20 kg (22 - 44 Ib) and keep them for about 180 days until they are about 115 kg (250 Ib). Other farms
specialize in pig breeding and are usually referred to as farrow-to-wean or farrowing operations. These
farms have sows, piglets, and boars under one roof.
In North Carolina, there is a rather elaborate regulatory and assistance process, where the farmer is permitted
or receives technical assistance from State and Federal government (e.g., the Natural Resources
Conservation Service) and university Extension Programs. For example, lagoon design must be approved
before a lagoon can be built. During construction and operation, there are regular inspections. Also, there
must be a plan for land application of the waste that details application amounts related to the soil type and
acreage.
1.1 Houses
The houses are approximately 70 m long and 15m wide. They have 40 to 50 pens of an average size of 13
to 16m2 that contain 20 to 25 pigs each. The average space per pig is 0.6 to 0.7 m2. There is a central aisle.
The pens and aisles are separated by fences. The floors are made of concrete and are completely slatted,
including under the central aisle. Waste produced by the pigs falls through the slats or is kicked down at a
later stage. Under the entire house, there is a concrete compartment about 0.5 m deep with rough, unfinished
sides and floor. This is filled with a layer of lagoon water of 25 cm (12 in.), which functions as a water seal
55 D
-------
to reduce odors. The floor of the compartment gently slopes and, at the deep end, there are one or two
plastic pipes or plugs that can be lifted manually to drain the pit. This is usually done once a week. The
waste and water drain by gravity into the lagoon. This system is referred to as a "pull-plug" system. In rare
occasions one may find houses with partially slatted floors and gutters under the slats that are flushed out by
lagoon water intermittently. Pigs are intelligent creatures that would typically try to keep the non-slatted part
of their pen clean.
On the back of the house (short side nearest the lagoon), five large automatic suction fans create a negative
pressure in the house. These fans provide cooling in summer and remove dust, ammonia, and odor. Air
inlets are either on the roof or on the other short side of the house. Also, some air may enter through the
sides of the house, which are typically made of canvas/plastic. When the temperature gets above 32 °C
(90 °F) the pigs are sprayed with a water mist, usually well water, to cool them. The spray comes on
intermittently.
Feed is automatically distributed from silos next to the house by electric motors. Each house has two silos.
Either pellets or granular feed is used. Both feed and water are continuously available to the pigs. Drinking
water is dispensed by pressure-regulated spouts. Also, the houses are fitted with a movable ramp for loading
the animals into and out of trucks. Between occupations, the houses are thoroughly cleaned by means of a
power washer. They are also fitted with sprinkler systems for cleaning and disinfecting. Dead pigs are
removed daily from the houses and are either buried or hauled off by a contractor for rendering.
1.2 Lagoons
The lagoon normally is an earthen basin with a clay liner. Some older lagoons were built before liners were
required. A typical lagoon may be about 4.3 m deep, with the water level at around 3.3 m. Depending on
the lay of the land and on the height of the water table, lagoons may be either dug or constructed with dikes.
The size of the lagoon depends on the number of pigs and is typically designed to have a 180 day storage
capacity and to have additional capacity to accommodate rain from a large storm. Actual retention time will
vary with the land application requirements and the need to keep the water level in check. In other words,
during wet weather, it will be necessary to spray more frequently to reduce the water level in the lagoon. A
large farm may have more than one lagoon. The lagoon(s) can be classified as anaerobic, although there
clearly is a facultative surface water layer that helps to control odors. Water for spray application is pumped
from about 30 cm below the surface. After a number of years (e.g., 10-15 years), the lagoon will have to be
56D
-------
dredged to remove solids that have built up. Lagoon solids are expected to contain a significant amount of
nitrogen.
1.3 Land Application
Typically the farmer grows grass for hay or a crop, such as corn or rye. Land application of lagoon effluent
takes place from April through September, during dry weather in the mornings and afternoons. The effluent
is sprayed by a large sprinkler through the air, several meters high and perhaps to a distance of 10 m. This
device is referred to as a traveling gun. Typically, about 1.5 cm is applied per spray period which lasts 1 or 2
hours.
2.0 POULTRY RAISING
2.1 Houses
A poultry house typically may contain over 100,000 birds. Typical housing systems include solid floors with
litter, or systems where the birds are kept in suspended cages above pits, where the manure is flushed out
into a lagoon, or where it is kept in dry form inside the house (high rise or deep pit). In North Carolina, litter
systems are, by far, the most common, followed by high rise pit systems. Pullets may be kept in cages with a
pit before being moved to a house with litter. There is anecdotal evidence that odors from the area where
pullets are kept are significantly stronger than from the litter system (Carter, Tom, NCSU, Extension
Specialist, 27/4/99).
In the litter system, the birds are raised on concrete or earthen floors. A 2 to 6 in. layer of sawdust, wood
shavings, rice hulls, or chopped straw is spread before the birds enter the building. Feeders and waterers
hung from the ceiling can be raised or removed for cleaning. Litter management includes removing caked
manure from around waterers, tilling to increase drying, and adding new litter. Periodically, tractor loaders
remove the manure-litter mixture and pens are cleaned and disinfected. Or just the top layer of caked litter
may be removed. The manure-litter mixture is land-spread or it may be stored for a few weeks to be land-
spread later. This system is often used for turkeys, broilers, ducks, and small layer flocks.
In the deep pit system, cages for layers or pullets are in rows of decks suspended above a pit approximately 6
ft deep. The pit may be built in the ground or above ground. When the entire structure is built above
ground, it is referred to as a high-rise house. Manure falls through the wire floor into the pit directly or is
scraped from dropping boards below the cages. If kept dry, manure can accumulate in pits for at least a year
57D
-------
and often longer. Deep pits hold manure stored as a solid (typical for layers or pullets) or a liquid (typical
for ducks).
The high rise layer house with deep pit storage is generally regarded as one of the most labor efficient
systems for manure management. Its success, however, is very dependent on good drainage, prevention of
water spillage onto the manure, and good air circulation over the manure mass. Drying should be enhanced
by forced air circulation underneath the cages. Another factor affecting the manure moisture content in a
high rise house is the bird density or number of birds per unit area of manure storage. Lower bird densities
increase the coning effect of the manure thereby exposing more surface area to air flow and increasing
drying. As bird densities increase, manure cones become less pronounced and are exposed to drying
conditions for a lesser period of time before being covered by fresh manure. Manure is usually removed
from the high rise house once per year. However, with proper moisture control, cleanouts have occurred as
infrequently as once in 7 years (NCSU Extension webpage).
2.2 Manure Management Outside the Houses
Manure stored outside the building can be either liquid or solid. Properly designed and installed
prefabricated steel, concrete, or earthen storages can be used for liquid poultry manure. With insufficient
indoor solid manure storage, or with daily operation of scrapers in shallow pits, solid manure can be stacked
outside the building. Increased storage can permit much longer intervals between land applications.
Spreading is usually done in the spring or fall when land is most accessible. Plowing or soil incorporation
soon after spreading is advised to conserve nutrients, to reduce field odors, flies, or other pest problems, and
to prevent pollution from rainfall runoff.
The use of flushing gutter manure removal systems is a proven successful manure management technique,
which involves moving large quantities of recycled lagoon liquid through the building on a daily basis.
Advantages of the flush system include a clean in-house environment with positive control of gases and
odors and an effective control of flies. Gutters are usually flushed daily with each gutter requiring about 15
minutes for cleaning. An outside collection box that couples with a smooth-walled drainpipe conducts the
wastewater back to the lagoon. Lagoons must be sized properly to achieve odor control and a water quality
suitable for flushing. North Carolina recommendations currently are 15 ft3 of lagoon space per bird for
caged layers for a single anaerobic lagoon. This system is rare in North Carolina. In view of pending
legislation to phase out all animal waste lagoons, it is unlikely that new lagoons will be constructed (Carter,
Tom, NCSU, Extension Specialist, 27/4/99).
58D
-------
3.0 DAIRY AND BEEF CATTLE RAISING
3.1 Dairy Cattle
There are two types of dairy cattle management, dry lot and open lot. The dry lot practice of dairy farming
consists of a milking herd of dairy cattle that are confined to a lot or loafing area. The area is generally made
of concrete and has three distinctive portions:
First there is the feeding area. Whether feeding silage from a silo or pit, or feeding a total mix
ration (TMR), the feeding is usually done in a trough with a conveyor system that distributes the
feed evenly along the distance of the trough. Feed is available from either side of the trough. The
manure from the feeding area is usually scraped from the area into the lagoon or pit with a skid
loader or similar type of equipment. The feeding area is always covered.
The second area is the loafing area. The loafing area is a covered shed with stalls on either side that
are approximately 4 ft wide by 8 ft long, separated by a hall. Depending on the herd size, there can
be two and sometime three hallways. The reason behind the short length is that the cattle can fit
partially in the stall and ideally when the cow releases manure, it will be out in the hall and can be
scraped into a holding pit or lagoon. The loafing area provides a low stress area to lounge and rest
and usually has sawdust or wood shavings for bedding, sometimes sand. Often there are a number
of fans and sprinkler systems to cool the cattle.
The third area is the milking area. Here the person who is milking stands in a depressed area about 3
ft deep. Cattle are generally fed while being milked or shortly before or after milking. The cattle
enter the area on both sides of the depressed part. The manure and urine are washed with water
down drains to the lagoon or holding pit. Often there are amounts of iodine and other disinfectants
that are used to sterilize the teats of the cow before and after milking.
The holding pit or lagoon is generally near the feeding and loafing area; e.g., around 50 ft away. The
holding pit would be covered. The retention time of the manure depends on the size of the pit and the herd
size. Water is used to clean the milk barn after milking, and the holding area that is used to hold the herd
preceding milking. Sometimes, water may also be used to flush the hallways and other areas that need
cleaning. In the dry lot practice, manure is most always scraped daily into a lagoon or holding pit. All
concrete surfaces are curbed and slope toward the lagoon/pit. The lagoon is emptied as often as yearly or
every 2 years for crop use. Before this occurs, the lagoon is "slurried" with water to soften solids that have
settled and is spread onto crop or pasture land.
59D
-------
Problems that often occur with dry lot dairies are manure run-off, microbiological contamination, and odor.
During high precipitation events, manure can wash off and over concrete areas, especially those that are in
need of repair or those that are improperly designed. Coliform and other types of bacteria can be expected in
dry lot manure. Footrot, pneumonia, and other bacteria related illnesses are common. Odor is a constant
problem. Lime is often used to "dilute" the odors as well as good management practices. Flies, fly larvae,
and other insects can be a problem also. The run-off is likely to contain large amounts of ammonia that is
generated in the urine of the cattle. Urine that is allowed to dry on solid floors, slats, and other structures is
probably the largest source of ammonia emissions.
In an open lot situation, the dairy cattle are kept in an open pasture or lot between milking periods. The lot is
grass or earth and generally grazing is available. The cattle are brought into a feeding lot and wait to be
milked, and then released. The cattle generally have access to a feed trough that has a concrete floor and is
usually close to the milking parlor. The cattle eat going in and out from milking, and at their leisure.
Manure management is the same as with dry lot, except the loafing area portion of the scheme is missing.
3.2 Beef Cattle
Beef cattle operations fall into three basic categories: cow-calf operation, stacker operation, and feedlot
operation. The cow-calf operation is one in which brood cows are put to pasture, generally one cow-calf pair
to every 3 acres. Cows have a calf every year; the gestation period for a cow is 285 days, and the cow is
given approximately 60-90 days rest. Most calving is done either in the early spring or early fall. Calves are
weaned at 7 months at a weight of 450-650 Ib.
Problems encountered with a cow-calf operation include overgrazing, disease, and soil contamination from
salt and mineral stations. Overgrazing results in erosion and retardation of growth in existing grasses.
Disease, such as e-coli and brucellosis are common problems that can affect wildlife and existing herds
downstream of contaminated farms. Soil contamination from salt and mineral boxes19 is a common problem.
Cattle will congregate around these areas and scatter the minerals on the ground. There is usually a
depression made from the cattle standing around the area. Often the boxes are placed close to water, and the
minerals are washed into nearby streams and ponds. The cattle will often drink after obtaining minerals and,
therefore they are deposited into the water source. Most ammonia emissions may be expected from feeding
19 A box is any structure in which minerals are placed. It could be a 55 gal. drum with a hole in it, a wooden
box, or a concrete structure.
60 D
-------
areas and from areas where cattle tend to congregate regularly, such as streams, shade trees, and mineral
stations.
Stacker operations work similar to the cow-calf operation except that they are weaned calves that weigh
from 450 to 800 Ib. They are put on pasture and fed a high carbohydrate ration to gain weight and then
shipped to a feedlot. The same problems are encountered as with a cow-calf operation. An additional
problem would be that there is usually a feeding area in which the calves are fed from a trough where erosion
and nutrient runoff can be observed. Occasionally, calves are fed from a truck that deposits feed directly on
the ground. The same environmental problems would be expected.
Feedlot cattle are similar to dry lot dairy cattle. They are confined to pens, generally 100 head to a pen. The
pens are uncovered. The cattle can be fed from 650 to 1500 Ib, although ideal finished weight is about 1200
Ib. The cattle are generally of the same weight, frame, and breed. The cattle are fed in a bunk feeder, which
generally is along a road so a truck with a side discharge can fill the bunk. The bunk has a slotted bar
structure so only the head can fit into the bunk and reach the food. The floor is usually earthen material.
The majority of cattle feeding is done in the Midwest. There, the winters are cold and the ground is usually
frozen during that time. But during other times of the year or if a persistent rain occurs, this area will be
very messy and manure and feed nutrient runoff is a major problem in feedlot operations. There also is a
tremendous ammonia problem, although often not recognized due to the open environment. Feedlot pens are
cleaned yearly and resurfaced with fresh soil.
61D
-------
APPENDIX B. NITROUS OXIDE AND METHANE EMISSIONS FROM
ANIMAL WASTE MANAGEMENT
1.0 NITROUS OXIDE
Bouwman et al. (1995) assesses uncertainties in global nitrous oxide (N2O) measurements by comparing
variants of inventories with source estimates inferred from inverse modeling techniques. The paper
concludes that the analysis presented does not reduce the uncertainty of annual N2O emissions from
individual sources. All sources include uncertainties, but uncertainties in emissions from soils and oceans,
the largest global sources, have major implications for the zonal distributions. The paper does identify N2O
from animal excreta as a significant global source. This source was recently identified by Khalil and
Rasmussen (1992), who estimated a global emission of 0.2 - 0.6 Tg N2O-N/year. Bouwman et al. (1995)
assumed that N2O emission was 1% of the N in animal excreta. This estimate results in a global emission of
1.0TgN2O-N/year.
The only field tests that were conducted in North Carolina to determine emissions from swine waste
application were targeted toward N2O. Experiments were conducted in April-May 1997 at fields planted
with winter wheat fertilized with effluent from swine lagoons, as well as with individual constituents. N2O
fluxes were analyzed over several days and soil properties were assessed. N2O emission fluxes increased
directly after application and tapered off to pre-application values after about 5 days. The maximum flux
that was measured was 4,000 jog N2O-N per m2 per hour (Whalen, 2000).
Moisture is an important parameter; it was found that emissions increased after rainfall. The soils continued
to have high concentrations of NO3 and NH4+ after the N2O emissions had returned to normal. Whalen
(2000) points out that lagoon effluent has 94% ammoniated nitrogen as opposed to liquid manure or sludge
which have longer term effects, due to gradual decomposition (several months). The author further indicates
that the results strongly suggest that most N2O production in response to spray field fertilization results from
denitrification. It is estimated that between 0.05 and 1.0% of the fertilizer is lost as N2O directly after
spraying. As indicated, more may be lost during ensuing rain events. The study does not give emission
factors where N2O emissions are directly related to the volume of waste sprayed.
In a second study, N2O emissions and soil characteristics were analyzed during three spray events of lagoon
effluent over a period of 24 days during August/September (Whalen et al., 2000). The nitrogen in the liquid
62 D
-------
waste was >90% NfLpN (thus inorganic). Nitrification and denitrification occurred almost entirely in the
upper 20 cm of the soil. N2O fluxes as high as 9,200 |o,g N2O-N per m2 per hour were observed directly after
application, but emissions decreased after several days to pre-application levels. The authors note that there
were poor correlations between soil physicochemical parameters and the N2O fluxes. The total fertilizer N
applied and N2O-N emitted were 29.7 and 395 mg/m2, respectively. The fractional loss corrected for
background emissions was 1.4 ± 1.1%. A value reported for mineral fertilizers from an extensive study by
Bouman (1994 in Whalen et al, 2000) is 1.25%.
2.0 METHANE
Animal waste management is required when livestock or poultry are confined in large numbers. Animal
waste from large operations is either managed as a solid (e.g., poultry litter) or it is diluted with water to
form a slurry to facilitate removal and transportation to a storage or treatment system. Liquid animal waste
treatment systems include lagoons or liquid slurry systems. Depending on the type of animal operation,
waste may be managed as a solid or as a liquid. For example, waste from swine and dairy operations is often
managed in lagoons or liquid slurry systems; whereas, waste from other animal categories, such as poultry
and beef cattle, is not typically managed as a liquid (Safley et al., 1992). Manure that is excreted and left in
the pasture and manure that is managed as a solid are also believed to emit some CFL, (Safley et al., 1992).
However, compared to emissions from the rumen, emissions from solid waste from cows are insignificant
(Williams, 1993).
Lagoons are large basins that hold liquid waste for a period up to several months. The lagoons used for
animal waste treatment are typically anaerobic, implying that they are relatively deep; i.e., more than 12 ft.
Liquid slurry systems are generally characterized by large concrete-lined tanks (pits) built into the ground.
In these systems, the diluted animal waste is stored for 6 or more months until it can be land-applied, which
usually occurs in late fall after harvesting.
Although liquid slurry systems are believed to be anaerobic, they are not necessarily sources of significant
CH4 emissions. The animal waste slurry in such a system is believed to be too concentrated to accommodate
significant populations of methanogenic bacteria. The solids concentration (wet basis) of swine manure in a
slurry system is typically around 4 to 5%; whereas, the solids concentration in the influent of a swine manure
lagoon is around 0.3%. Also, the pH in liquid slurry manure is generally too low for significant
63 D
-------
methanogenesis to occur. Hence, the primary function of liquid slurry systems is storage, as opposed to
treatment, and these systems can be ruled out as a significant source of CFL, (Barker, 1997; Lorimor, 1997).
The choice of liquid animal waste management systems at swine or dairy operations is determined by type
and size of operation, historical preference, and climate. For example, dairy cattle may be kept at pasture for
grazing when not being milked at the milk parlor. Only the waste excreted at the milk parlor would be
collected. Very small swine or dairy operations with few animals usually do not incorporate a waste
management system. Older farms and small to mid-size farms would typically have a liquid slurry pit, as is
the case in eastern Texas (Chasteen, 1997). Large, modern operations (more than 1,000 head), where the
animals are permanently confined, have a comprehensive waste management system (i.e., either a slurry
system or anaerobic lagoon, depending on the local climate). In colder climates, liquid slurry systems
prevail because the temperature in a lagoon would be too cold for significant anaerobic degradation to occur
during late fall, winter, and spring. Lorimor (1997) provides examples of states that would use either
lagoons or liquid slurry systems: operations in Iowa use very few lagoons, and operations in Illinois,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin use none; Missouri makes some use of lagoons; and states at latitudes south of
Missouri primarily use lagoons. Swine operations in North Carolina almost solely make use of lagoons.
To identify the degree of lagoon utilization based on climate considerations for waste treatment at large,
modern dairy and swine farms, the U.S. was divided into three climate categories. Category 1 includes states
with a relatively warm climate; i.e., Arizona, Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Maryland, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia, as well as other southeastern states. Large, modern swine or
5 ; ; O 5 O 5
dairy farms in Category 1 states would almost solely make use of lagoons. Category 2 includes Colorado,
southern Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, southern New York, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Utah, and West Virginia. In these states, lagoon usage at large modern swine and dairy farms
is common. All other states fall in Category 3, which represents a climate with prolonged cold winters,
where anaerobic lagoons are not feasible.
64 D
-------
2.1 Methodology and Emission Estimates D
The methodology to estimate QrU emissions from animal waste lagoons is represented by: D
CH4EmissionSi= (PsiuSsi) uTAMiuMiuCODiuNuEFu365 u 10'12 [Tg/yr]
in which:
subscript /' denotes animal type; e.g., swine or dairy cattle;
subscript s denotes state;
Pt = number of animals;
St = fraction of waste from animal type /' in state s that is treated in lagoons (%);
TAMj = typical animal mass in the U.S. (kg);
Mi = manure and urine production (kg/kg TAM/day);
COD; = average COD in fresh manure and urine (g/kg);
N = removal efficiency (%); and
EF = emission factor = 0.3 ± 0. 1 g CHVg CODrem0ved-
The number of animals (/*) can be obtained from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which publishes
comprehensive statistics on the Internet. In 1996, the number of dairy cattle in the U.S. was estimated at 9.4
million. This estimate does not include milk cow replacement heifers, because these animals do not spend
time at the milk parlor. The total number of swine in 1996 in the U.S. was 58 million. In June 1996, the
State of North Carolina had 8.9 million swine and a negligible number of milk cows. In addition to North
Carolina, important swine raising states are Iowa, Illinois, and Minnesota (see Table Bl). The most
important dairy cattle states are Wisconsin, California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota (see Table
B2).
Values for the fraction of waste S from animal type /' in each state are based on expert judgment and on the
information provided by Barker (1997), Lorimor (1997), and Chasteen (1997). Safley et al. (1992) include
values for S for the entire U.S., stating that 25% of swine manure and 10% of dairy cattle manure are
managed in lagoons. In recent years, there has been a tendency toward larger swine and dairy farms where
the animals are fully confined. Accordingly, it is believed that the S values used by Safley are now too low.
Tables B 1 and B2 include values for S for significant swine and/or dairy states.
65 D
-------
Table B1. Methane Emission Estimates from Anaerobic Swine Waste Treatment Lagoons
in the United States in 1996
State
IA
NC
MN
IL
IN
NE
MO
OH
KS
Wl
OK
Ml
PA
OTHERS
TOTAL
Climate
Class
3
1
3
3/2
3
3
2
3
2
3
1
3
2
2
Population
(million)
13,300,000
8,900,000
4,800,000
4,700,000
3,850,000
3,800,000
3,550,000
1,700,000
1,320,000
1,200,000
1,150,000
1,100,000
1,020,000
7,610,000
58,000,000
sa
(%)
0
90
0
30
0
0
50
0
50
0
90
0
50
35
average 28%
CH4 Emissions
(Tg/yr)
-
0.42
-
0.07
-
-
0.09
-
0.03
-
0.05
-
0.03
0.14
0.8
Fraction of waste that is treated in lagoons
Table B2. Methane Emission Estimates from Anaerobic Dairy Cattle Waste Treatment Lagoons
in the United States in 1996
State
Wl
CA
NY
PA
MN
TX
Ml
OH
WA
IA
ID
MO
OTHERS
TOTAL
Climate
Class
3
1
3/2
2
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
2
Population
(million)
1,475,000
1,260,000
700,000
648,000
600,000
400,000
328,000
285,000
264,000
250,000
245,000
185,000
2,772,000
9,412,000
Sa
(%)
0
50
20
20
0
50
0
0
0
0
0
20
15
average 16%
CH4 Emissions
(Tg/yr)
-
0.41
0.09
0.08
-
0.13
-
-
-
-
-
0.02
0.27
1.0
Fraction of waste that is treated in lagoons
66 D
-------
According to Adler (1994), the typical animal mass (TAM) for dairy cattle is 550 kg; whereas, Barker (1997)
uses 636 kg. It was decided to use the average of the two values: i.e., 593 kg. (Barker collected
miscellaneous field data from over 50 different farms in North Carolina.) For swine, the average TAM is 61
kg (Adler, 1994; Barker, 1997; Safley et al, 1992). Barker (1997) provides manure production ratesMfor
dairy cattle and swine. Mfor dairy cattle is 0.087 ± 0.013 g/day.kg and for swine Mis 0.082 ± 0.025
g/day.kg. These figures are similar to the ones used in Adler (1994). Average COD in fresh swine manure
and urine is 103 ± 39 g/kg. For dairy cattle, COD is 128 ± 27 g/kg.
In this study it is assumed that the animal waste does not undergo significant biodegradation with associated
CUt emissions prior to reaching the lagoon. Also, not all animal waste COD that enters a lagoon will
actually biodegrade and contribute to CH4 emissions; i.e., the removal efficiency (TV) is less than 100%.
Adler (1994) expresses the removal efficiency as "Methane Conversion Factor" (MCF) which is defined as:
the extent to which the maximum CFL, producing capacity is realized for a given manure management
system. According to this document, the MCF of an anaerobic animal waste lagoon N = 90% on a yearly
basis. Undegraded COD may, in part, accumulate in the sludge (e.g., as living cell matter) or it may leave
with the effluent. Lagoon effluent is land-applied (sprayed over fields), where remaining organics degrade
aerobically or are taken up by vegetation. Table B3 summarizes the parameters used in the CFL, emission
calculations for swine and dairy cattle.
Table B3. Parameters Used To Calculate CH4 Emissions for Swine and Dairy Cattle Waste Lagoons
in the United States
Parameter
Typical animal mass
Manure and urine production
COD
Removal efficiency
Emission factor
Symbol
TAM
M
COD
N
EF
Unit
kg
kg/kg, day
g/kg
%
g CH4/ g
CODpemoved
Swine
61
0.085
103
90
0.3
Dairy
593
0.087
128
90
0.3
Tables Bl and B2 include CFL, emission estimates from lagoons for swine and dairy cattle in the U.S.,
respectively. Methane emissions from swine waste lagoons in the U.S. are estimated at 0.8 Tg/year and from
dairy cattle are 1.0 Tg/year. Total CFLj emissions from animal waste lagoons in the U.S. are 1.8 Tg/year,
which compares well with estimates by Safley et al. (1992). Safley estimated that total emissions from
animal waste lagoons were 1.4 Tg/year. Also, Safley estimated that total emissions from dairy cattle were
67 D
-------
1.0 Tg/year and from swine, 1.1 Tg/year. These estimates include emissions from other sources than
anaerobic lagoons, such as liquid slurry systems and manure that is produced by animals at pasture.
3.0 REFERENCES
Adler, M.J. 1994. International Anthropogenic Methane Emissions: Estimates for 1990. Report to
Congress. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Washington, DC. EPA/230-
R-93-010. January, 1994.
Barker, J.C. 1997. Personal communication between Michiel Doom and Dave Liles, ARCADIS Geraghty
& Miller and James C. Barker, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC. January 29, 1997.
Bouwman, A.F., K.W. van der Hoek, and J.G.J. Olivier. 1995. Uncertainties in the global source
distribution of nitrous oxide. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 100, No. D2, pp. 2785-2800, February
20, 1995.
Chasteen, E.S. 1997. Personal communication Eric S. Chasteen, Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission, Agriculture and Watershed Management Division, Austin, TX, and Michiel Doom, ARCADIS
Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
Khalil, M.A.K., and R.A. Rasmussen. 1992. The global sources of nitrous oxide. Journal of Geophysical
Research, Vol. 97, No. 14, pp. 651-660.
Lorimor, J. 1997. Personal communication J. Lorimor, Iowa State University, Agriculture & Biosystems
Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, and Michiel Doom, ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
Safley, L.M. Jr., M.E. Casada, J.W. Woodbury, and K.F. Roos. 1992. Global Methane Emissions from
Livestock and Poultry Manure. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation.
Washington, DC. EPA/400/1-91/048. February 1992.
Whalen, S.C. 2000. Nitrous Oxide Emission from an Agricultural Soil Fertilized with Liquid Swine Waste
or Constituents. Soil Science Society of America Journal, Volume 64, No. 2, pp. 781-789. Mar.-Apr. 2000.
Whalen, S.C., R.L. Philips, and E.A. Fischer. 2000. Nitrous oxide emission from an agricultural field
fertilized with liquid lagoonal swine effluent. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 545-558.
Williams, D.J. 1993. Methane Emissions from Manure of Free-Range Dairy Cows. CSIRO Division of
Coal and Energy Technology, North Ryde, NSW 2113, Australia. Chemosphere, Vol. 26, 1-4 (January-
February), pp. 179-187.
68 D
-------
APPENDIX C. COMPARISON OF FIELD TEST METHODS TO MEASURE AIR EMISSIONS
FROM SWINE LAGOONS
This appendix provides some notes on the technologies used by the several groups involved in the "Intensive
Study" at Farm #NC10. These technologies include flux chambers (Aneja et al., 2000), micrometeorology
(Harper and Sharpe, 1998), open-path Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (OP-FTIR) (Harris and
Thompson, 1998) and computer-aided tomography OP-FTIR (CAT-OP-FTIR) (Todd, 1999). Also see
Chapter 3 of this report, entitled "Field Tests in North Carolina." (All references are in Section 6 of the
basic report.)
1.0 FLUX CHAMBERS
The flux chamber method uses a plastic chamber of defined dimensions to isolate a portion of the source
under investigation. During use, a zero-grade (zero background for the effluent being tested) compressed air
source delivers a known flow rate through the chamber and carries the diluted effluent being tested to an
appropriate analytical technique. By measuring the effluent concentration in the diluted exit stream and
having set the carrier gas flow rate, effluent mass per unit time is easily determined. In the case of the
Intensive Site, ammonia was determined by chemiluminescence after conversion to nitric oxide. It is
important to note that this is the one flux determination technique that does not require the determination of
meteorology data. The flux chamber isolates the covered area from ambient wind conditions. The diluent
gas flow provides a known and constant artificial breeze.
Three important assumptions must be recognized.
The source acts as an infinite source for the effluent being determined. More precisely, the effluent
being determined is entering the test area at least as fast as it is being carried away by the diluent gas
flow. In the case of a waste lagoon, this seems like a reasonable assumption. Flux chambers have also
been used for determining ammonia loss from field applications of liquefied hog waste. It is unclear that
this assumption holds up in soil applications.
The selected test area is equivalent to the source as a whole. In other words, testing at map points xyj
and xayb will provide the same results. It should be noted that the CAT-OP-FTIR work was performed
based upon exactly the opposite argument; i.e., localized variations in effluent rate do exist. While the
authors of this report have not seen the presentations from the tomography group, it is our understanding
that such variability was found during the Intensive Study work. Also, the flux chamber work presents
an ammonia flux rate model in which the emission rate is related to factors that include lagoon water
temperature. In a waste lagoon heated partially by solar influx and described as having "sloping sides,"
a variation in water temperature with location is probable.
The gas velocity is not a parameter which influences the emission factor; whereas, the model presented
by the micrometeorology report (Harper and Sharpe, 1998) states that it is. It is unlikely that that gas-
phase ammonia concentration, influenced by gas velocity, is not a factor in the several equilibria
between total ammonia nitrogen in the lagoon to gas-phase ammonia.
Flux chamber technology has the advantage of being a mature technology, which may be easily and
dependably deployed to those sources to which it is applicable. This can be seen in the current report where
data are provided on a seasonal basis for the entire year. Quality assurance measures are well defined.
These include the diluent gas background concentration, the diluent gas flow rate, adsorption/desorption
rates for the effluent and the flux chamber walls, sample conditioning equipment, and the analytical
69 D
-------
technique itself. Freedom from the collection of meteorology data and use of a tracer gas may also be
considered advantages. Finally, the authors of this report do not believe that flux chamber studies are
applicable to all sources. The technology is well suited to stationary, well-mixed, infinite sources such as
waste lagoons. It does not seem applicable to house studies, or the actual spraying phase of field
applications.
2.0 MICROMETEOROLOGY
The micrometeorology technique uses a vertical array of wind speed and temperature sensors operated in
parallel, with effluent sampling occurring in parallel. In use, this vertical array is located in the middle of the
source. The effluent sampling and analysis technique is adjusted to suit the compounds currently being
studied. In the case of airborne ammonia during the Intensive Study, this consisted of collecting 4-hour
averaged samples in sulfuric acid containing impingers, followed by sample storage, transportation, and
colorimetric analysis in the laboratory. When a predictive model is to be developed, additional data
regarding the source will also be collected.
As in the flux chamber technique, there is an assumption that the selected test location is equivalent to the
source as a whole. This assumption may be more valid here, since significant convective gas mixing should
occur in the air above the lagoon. Yet, the basic premises of the CAT-OP-FTIR technique and its results do
need to be addressed at some point.
It is interesting to note that the calculation of effluent flux density from the collected data is dependent upon
effluent gas concentration, wind velocity, and the associated sampling heights.
Micrometeorology has the advantage of being a mature technology which may be easily and dependably
deployed to those sources to which it is applicable. The group involved in the Intensive Study has used this
equipment at a number of hog waste lagoons and at least one field application. Micrometeorology was
apparently also used successfully in an Oklahoma field application study. Freedom from the use of a tracer
gas may also be considered an advantage.
Quality assurance measures are well defined but do bring up issues. This is particularly true for everything
associated with the sample collection and analysis (e.g., the ammonia determination by colorimetry). Six
independent samples are collected every 4 hours. There must be, therefore, six gas sampling pumps that
must be calibrated and checked. While the quality assurance steps are not reported in the available reports, it
is likely that the samples must be stored cold, shipped back to the laboratory, and analyzed within some
maximum holding period. Blank and synthetic samples should exist at both the laboratory and field level to
check for contamination and losses. It is fortunate that so many independent samples were collected during
each period since the loss of any one sample does not invalidate an entire sampling period.
Another issue associated with the collection of grab samples for ammonia analysis is the time resolution of
the data. It is likely that the other data were collected at a fairly high sampling rate; a point per minute is
often typical for computer-interfaced sensors. The ammonia data have a much lower sampling rate of one
sample per 4-hour period. This results in the averaging of data collected at the higher sampling rates and a
much lower time resolution to the flux density results. This also, of course, impacts the predictive modeling
that is presented in the report.
Finally, it is not clear that micrometeorology studies are applicable to all sources. As the existing data
demonstrate, it is well suited to stationary sources where the sensor/sampling tower may be located centrally.
It does not seem applicable to house studies, for example.
70 D
-------
3.0 D TOMOGRAPHIC OPEN-PATH FOURIER TRANSFORM INFRARED SPECTROSCOPY
(CAT-OP-FTIR)
This is a new technology, and the Intensive Study work is reported as the first large-scale field study using
this technique. This technique requires two or more scanning OP-FTIRs and several retroreflectors. For the
determination of emission rates, a tracer gas, non-reactive and without interference from ambient species or
the effluent under study, was released from the middle of the sampling area. Setup consists of carefully
locating the spectrometers and retroreflectors around the circumference of the sampling area in such a way
that the combination of one spectrometer and the retroreflectors covers the entire sampling area and that each
grid point is covered along significantly different vectors for the two spectrometers.
During operation, each spectrometer is scanned sequentially among the set of retroreflectors and determines
path-averaged spectra. Post-collection, path-averaged concentrations are determined by comparison to
reference spectra for the tracer gas and effluent compounds under study; then the data are manipulated by
tomographic software to determine the 2-dimensional distribution of effluent concentration.
It is important to note that there is no indication that meteorology data are required for this method. It is
certainly true that most, if not all, of the effluent plume must pass through the analytical plane. It is also true
that there is nothing in the tracer gas ratio calculation that requires meteorology data. Meteorological data
were collected during this study, however.
This technology would seem to have three, possibly four, advantages.
The operational costs, as opposed to capital and setup costs, must be rather low. Operational costs
consist mainly of liquid nitrogen for the detectors, tracer gas (though sulfur hexafluoride is very
expensive), and electricity.
There is a high time resolution to the data. In this study, they report a complete sampling of the lagoon
every 2 minutes.
The use of FTIR provides the potential for simultaneous, multicomponent analysis. This is a very real
benefit when compared to the flux chambers and micrometeorology where an effluent specific analytical
technique must be selected and integrated into the system.
If meteorology data are not required for this method of determining emission rates, that would be an
advantage it shares with the flux chamber technique.
This technology is very hardware intensive and has a complex setup procedure. Each spectrometer and
retroreflector is located in a plane parallel to the sampling surface after classical survey techniques are
performed.
It must be admitted that it is unclear what the determination of geographical concentration distribution offers
to the calculation of emission rates from a source such as a swine farm lagoon. While current results may
raise some quality assurance questions for the flux chamber and micrometeorological techniques, there is
little to indicate that the concentration distribution is needed for the calculation of an emission rate.
4.0 OPEN-PATH FOURIER TRANSFORM INFRARED SPECTROSCOPY (OP-FTIR)
OP-FTIR utilizes a high-resolution spectrometer with a (measured) open path through which the sample
passes. Depending upon the instrument configuration, it may be operated either single-pass (source and
detector at opposing ends), or folded-pass (source and detector in a single box with a retroreflector at the
opposite end). In use, the open sampling path is located downwind of the source and depends upon ambient
air movement to move the plume through the analytical beam. Since ambient air movement is used for
sample introduction to the instrument, the tracer gas technique is used for emission rate calculation.
71D
-------
Meteorological data are also collected. They are needed because this is the one method that operates
downwind of the source, and wind direction must be monitored to ensure that the plume is moving through
the analytical path. Additionally, relative humidity is monitored and used to calculate a water correction
when needed.
OP-FTIRhas several advantages for emission factor determination.
OP-FTIR is very flexible. The instrument is located downwind of the source along with the colocated
meteorological station. Being a technique that provides simultaneous, multicomponent analysis, it can
be applied to new situations quickly and flexibly. For the Intensive Study, it is the only technique to
collect data for both ammonia and methane. It was the only technique to move from the lagoon to the
house exhausts.
The technique provides high time resolution data. As operated for the Intensive Study, it provided
concentration data with 1-minute resolution.
OP-FTIR provides a sensitive analysis. Depending upon the analyte, quantification limits may be in the
ppbv range.
Each analyte is "over-determined." This means that each analyte will have several lines in the spectrum;
each line provides an alternative for quantification at a different sensitivity or avoiding a spectral
interference from some ambient component (such as water vapor).
The technique can determine multiple gas-phase analytes simultaneously. Gases that cannot be
determined by OP-FTIR include the mono-atomic and symmetric diatomic molecules.
OP-FTIR also has some disadvantages:
Common ambient species, such as water and carbon dioxide, are also detected by FTIR and can interfere
with the analysis. Water is a particular problem since, particularly in the East, it is present in high
concentrations and has minor lines throughout the mid-IR (which is where these instruments operate).
This is dealt with by including water in the quantification step and using relative humidity data for an
independent analysis of it.
The use of ambient air movements for sample introduction is also an issue since wind shifts can quickly
move the entire plume partially or completely out of the sample beam. When this happens, data are lost
and either one must wait for the wind to bring the plume back or one must move the instrument. The
wind direction is monitored continually for this reason.
Changing wind directions is one of the main reasons why this technique requires continual support by
field personnel when operating. This increases operating costs.
There is an assumption that sampling is being done at the appropriate height. High wind speed may
"lay" the plume over and take it below the analytical beam. After quantification, the concentration data
are matched up by time with the meteorological data and a point with high wind speed or an
inappropriate wind direction for the instrument orientation is eliminated prior to emission rate
calculation.
Traditionally OP-FTIR is performed with a tracer gas release to calculate the emission rates. This is a
prerequisite when dispersion modeling is used for flux rate calculations. The newest approaches, using
multiple beam paths and computed tomography, avoid this. Selection of an appropriate tracer gas can be
difficult, particularly when parallel studies are being performed by other groups. Some tracer gases,
such as sulfur hexafluoride, are extremely expensive.
72 D
-------
The detector must operate at liquid nitrogen temperatures. Depending upon the detector's dewar size,
this severely limits this technique's potential for collecting data around the clock.
The selection of an I0 spectrum. The conversion of the collected spectral data proceeds from
interferogram to intensity and finally to absorbance, which is the form needed for quantification. The
conversion from intensity to absorbance is a ratio calculation using I0, or background intensity spectrum.
(It must be noted that this is separate from collection of an upwind background spectrum, which is used
to determine ambient levels of the analytes being studied.) The problem comes in determining the
proper method for collection, or calculation of this I0 spectrum. Because of the open-path configuration
and continuous data collection, there is no appropriate time to collect a "real" I0 spectrum. Most groups,
including this one and the CAT-OP-FTIR group, have settled on the calculation of a synthetic
background spectrum from, typically, an average intensity data spectrum.
73 D
------- |