Predicting ammonia losses following the application of livestock manure to land

Posted in: Environment by admin on January 1, 2005 | No Comments

Integrated Waste Management Approaches (Integrated Waste Management Solutions)

Posted in: Environment by admin on | No Comments

Higher energy prices have motivated some hog producers to switch to coal to heat their barns over winter. An alternative solution to this is hog manure. Three integrated waste management initiatives help to address public concern on odour, water contamination, and animal and people welfare. Bio-Terre Systems in Canada is taking the approach of low temperature anaerobic digestion of manure. This system uses special bacteria that require no oxygen to function. The digestion of manure will result in the emission of methane and biogas, which can be used to generate energy. Home Farm Technologies Inc. processes manure through their Enviro Reactor which mechanically and chemically separate solids from liquids. The solids can be either composted or used as fuel in the Energy Reactor or Gasifier to produce steam that runs a turbine generator producing thermal and/or electrical energy. Clear-Green Environmental Inc. has a project in Cudworth, Saskatchewan that produces biogas through anaerobic digestion of hog manure. This biogas is used to fuel a co-generation unit built and operated by SaskPower, producing electrical energy that is delivered into SaskPower’s electrical grid. The digester uses a portion of the thermal energy and a portion is sold to the hog facility. Their focus is to form partnerships with waste producers to build operating plants where the company brings the technology, capital and operations. The waste producer provides the site, contract, and can invest as a partner. Anaerobic digesters are well known and widely used. Advanced technology end-use applications can increase the economic value of biogas.

EFFECTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ON ODOR EMISSION FROM PIG MANURE

Posted in: Environment by admin on | No Comments

Estimating gas emissions from a farm with an inverse-dispersion technique

Posted in: Environment by admin on | No Comments

Effectiveness of short-term aeration in treating swine finishing manure to reduce odour generation potential

Posted in: Environment by admin on | No Comments

Effects of Overseeding Cool-Season Annuals on Hay Yield and Nitrogen and Phosphorus Uptake by Tifton 44 Bermudagrass Fertilized with Swine Effluent

Posted in: Environment by admin on | No Comments

Nitrogen Concentration at Maturity—An Indicator of Nitrogen Status in Forage Maize

Posted in: Environment by admin on | No Comments

Les exploitations d'élevage et la qualité de l'eau souterraine

Posted in: Environment by admin on | No Comments

La plupart des personnes vivant dans les zones rurales du Manitoba dépendent principalement de l’eau souterraine pour s’approvisionner en eau. Afin de protéger et de conserver la qualité des sources d’eau souterraine, il est important que les producteurs agricoles exploitent leurs terres d’une manière responsable, en tant que gardien non seulement de la terre mais aussi de l’eau souterraine qui s’y trouve.

Tips for Saving Water

Posted in: Prairie Swine Centre by admin on | No Comments

Water is an essential nutrient in pork production. Research reveals how we can manage this resource for best results and minimal cost.

1. Do a water audit. Wasted water costs money to pump and to dispose of in slurry. The average usage is 78L per sow (farrow to finish farm), however actual usage has been reported as low as 65L/sow and as high as 120L/sow, a variation of as much as 50% from the mean! See water usage table in Pork Production Reference Guide 2000, pg 30.

2. Water requirements have been found to be 2.3L for every kilogram of feed consumed (grower and finisher pigs). Gonyou

3. Mounting water nipples correctly reduces wasted water. For nipples pointed straight out pigs should drink from shoulder height. For nipples mounted downward at 45o the nipple should be 5cm (2 inches) above the back of the pig. Mounting lower will increase water wastage. Nipples should be set for the height of the smallest pig in the pen. Water Use and Drinker Management, Gonyou,

4. Check flow rates. Flow rates determine time spent at the nipple, water intake and water wastage. Too little is just as costly as too much when it comes to flow rates. Flow rates of 1,500 ml for lactating sows, 700 ml in grow-finish are recommended. Research on wastage found 23% at 2080ml/min versus 8.6% at 650 ml/min. Water use and Drinker Management, Gonyou

5. Adjust nipple height. Improved water nipple design by providing a step for smaller pigs resulted in a reduction of water waste of 13%, and reduced manure volume of 10% compared to conventional nipple drinkers. Well-managed nipple drinkers (including nipple height changed every two weeks and flow rate) gave similar results to the improved nipple designs. PSC Annual Report 2002, Li, pg 23.

6. Cup or bowl drinkers waste less water, reducing spillage by 10-15%. Energy Efficiency in Barns, Part I Winter/spring 2001.

7. Water wastage has been measured at 25% of total water disappearance in grower-finisher pigs at Prairie Swine Centre, this is lower than the 40-60% estimated on commercial farms. Proper flow rates and nipple height could contribute to reduced losses. PSC Annual Report 2002, LI, pg 23.

8. Use wet/dry feeders in grow-finish. Wet/dry feeders reduce water used by 34%, and slurry volume by 20-40% compared with dry feeders and a bowl. Wet/dry feeders also increase consumption of mash diets compared to dry feeders and a separate water nipple, resulting in a 5% improvement in average daily gain. PSC Annual Report 2002, Christianson, pg 24.

9. Avoid high mineral water sources. High levels of sulphate in water results in an osmotic diarrhea but has no effect on animal performance. PSC Annual Report 1997, Patience, pg 26.

10. Feeding a diet containing excessive protein and/or excessive mineral levels results in increased water usage. PSC Annual Report 2002, Shaw, pg 33.

11. Temperature impacts water requirements. For every 1oC above 20oC results in a sow drinking 0.2L more water each day. Energy Efficiency in Barns, part I, Winter/Spring 2001.

12. Wasted water results in increased slurry application costs. Assuming grow-finish pigs waste 40% of water delivered to the nipple, 396L will be wasted per market hog. This will result in increased manure slurry produced and cost an additional $0.60 per pig in manure application costs. Energy Efficiency in Barns, Part I, Winter/Spring 2001.

Practical Application of Enzyme Supplementation in Swine

Posted in: Prairie Swine Centre by admin on | No Comments

Introduction
Application of enzymes to improve nutrients digestibility of plant-based feed ingredients for swine and poultry has now been studies for decades. Initially, the main focus was phytase to break down the phytate molecule and release the attached phosphorus molecules. In the last two decades, enzymes to assist digesting NSP were developed, tested, and commercialized. In the meantime, enzymes to assist digesting starch, protein and fat have been tested as well. A large array of chemical characteristics exists among plant-based feed ingredients, and success of enzyme application will depend on these characteristics. The substrate must match the enzyme and be a limitation for nutrient digestibility or voluntary feed intake. Two diet formulation methods exists to apply enzyme treatments in practice: (1) formulate diets to a regular nutrient content and supplement with an enzyme, while hoping for an improvement in feed efficiency, or (2) formulate diets to a reduced nutrient content and count on an uplift by the enzyme to a regular nutrient content, while reducing feed costs. An overview of considerations and practical application of enzyme supplementation in swine will be presented.

Ingredients
Seeds of plants crops or fractions thereof each contain some of the three main energy categories: carbohydrates [divided into sugars, starch and non-starch polysaccharides (NSP)], protein, and oil (fat). Among the listed feed ingredients, a large array in content of these main energy categories exist, ranging from 10 to 37% NSP, 14 to 63% starch, 9 to 47% protein, and 1 to 5% fat (Table 1).

In least-cost diet formulation, the greatest cost-pressure exists against digestible or available energy (Zijlstra et al. 2001). Overall in swine nutrition, the inverse relationship between NSP content and energy digestibility has been well described for several feed ingredients, for example wheat (Zijlstra et al. 1999) and barley (Fairbairn et al. 1999). Logically, enzymes that degrade fiber and thereby improve energy digestibility or voluntary feed intake will thus have a high chance to be beneficial economically, whereas phytase to improve phosphorus digestibility may also reduce nutrient excretion and thereby improve sustainability of the swine industry.
Among ingredient, large differences in digestibility of the main macronutrients exist (Figure 1). Among the cereal grains, oats has the lowest digestibility of crude fiber, then barley, wheat, while corn has the highest digestibility of crude fiber. Both peas and soybean meal have a high digestibility of crude fiber. By-products from value-added processing, including wheat middlings from wheat flour milling, generally have a lower nutrient digestibility than the parent cereal. Digestibility of other carbohydrates, including starch, sugars, and the remainder of the fiber fractions was lower for wheat middlings, oats and barley compared to the other four feed ingredients. Protein digestibility followed and similar pattern as digestibility of other carbohydrates with the highest protein digestibility observed for soybean meal. According to the database (CVB 1994), fat digestibility showed a large variation among feed ingredients. Phosphorus digestibility was consistently below 40%, likely due to the phytate contained in plant-based feed ingredients.