CA2212987A1 - Method of stabilizing odors in manure - Google Patents
Method of stabilizing odors in manureInfo
- Publication number
- CA2212987A1 CA2212987A1 CA002212987A CA2212987A CA2212987A1 CA 2212987 A1 CA2212987 A1 CA 2212987A1 CA 002212987 A CA002212987 A CA 002212987A CA 2212987 A CA2212987 A CA 2212987A CA 2212987 A1 CA2212987 A1 CA 2212987A1
- Authority
- CA
- Canada
- Prior art keywords
- manure
- level
- solids
- odor
- admixture
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Abandoned
Links
Classifications
-
- C—CHEMISTRY; METALLURGY
- C05—FERTILISERS; MANUFACTURE THEREOF
- C05F—ORGANIC FERTILISERS NOT COVERED BY SUBCLASSES C05B, C05C, e.g. FERTILISERS FROM WASTE OR REFUSE
- C05F3/00—Fertilisers from human or animal excrements, e.g. manure
-
- Y—GENERAL TAGGING OF NEW TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS; GENERAL TAGGING OF CROSS-SECTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES SPANNING OVER SEVERAL SECTIONS OF THE IPC; TECHNICAL SUBJECTS COVERED BY FORMER USPC CROSS-REFERENCE ART COLLECTIONS [XRACs] AND DIGESTS
- Y02—TECHNOLOGIES OR APPLICATIONS FOR MITIGATION OR ADAPTATION AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE
- Y02A—TECHNOLOGIES FOR ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE
- Y02A40/00—Adaptation technologies in agriculture, forestry, livestock or agroalimentary production
- Y02A40/10—Adaptation technologies in agriculture, forestry, livestock or agroalimentary production in agriculture
- Y02A40/20—Fertilizers of biological origin, e.g. guano or fertilizers made from animal corpses
-
- Y—GENERAL TAGGING OF NEW TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS; GENERAL TAGGING OF CROSS-SECTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES SPANNING OVER SEVERAL SECTIONS OF THE IPC; TECHNICAL SUBJECTS COVERED BY FORMER USPC CROSS-REFERENCE ART COLLECTIONS [XRACs] AND DIGESTS
- Y02—TECHNOLOGIES OR APPLICATIONS FOR MITIGATION OR ADAPTATION AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE
- Y02P—CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES IN THE PRODUCTION OR PROCESSING OF GOODS
- Y02P20/00—Technologies relating to chemical industry
- Y02P20/141—Feedstock
- Y02P20/145—Feedstock the feedstock being materials of biological origin
Landscapes
- Chemical & Material Sciences (AREA)
- Organic Chemistry (AREA)
- Treatment Of Sludge (AREA)
- Fertilizers (AREA)
Abstract
A process of stabilizing odors in animal manure comprised of water and solids by adding an admixture thereto to adjust the pH of the manure to a level that will minimize the release of odorous compounds including ammonia and hydrogen sulfide to the surrounding air.
Description
W O 97/~1647 PCT/US96/20453 TlTLE: MET~OD OF STABILIZING ODORS IN MANURE
BACKGROUND O~ T~E LNV~'l'lON
~ The treating of ~ni~-l and human wastes for various purposes has been taking place for centuries. ~n modern times, this activity has centered primarily on municipal sewage and waste water treatment plants, and on manure collected at livestock and poultr~ feeding facilities. In regard to municipal treatment plants, much attention has been directed to dewatering the sewage and then adding various alkaline materials to the resulting sludge to raise the pH of the mixture to 12 and above. This is done to stabilize the pathogenic bacteria whereupon the sludge is more suitable for use as fertilizer and is environmentally acceptable.
Regulations o~ the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) closely limit this activity. Examples of this technology are shown in U.S. Patents Nos. 5,277,826;
4,902,431; 4,781,842 and 4,554,002.
In the area of ~n;m~l and poultry wastes, the odor emitted by the manure, has been the primary concern, and while this matter has been addressed (e.g. U.S. Patent No.
4,902,431), no universally acceptable manure odor stabilizing processes have been developed to effectively combat this problem. ~n; ~1 and poultry wastes appear in different locations and different holding devices in a multitude of ~n; ~l and poultry confinement buildings which have emerged in great numbers over the last Z5 years. These facilities include slotted floors and solid ~1Oors from which manures are collected by manual or mechanical scraping or flushing;
gutters; recirculation flush pits; and gravity flow channels.
They also include open feed lots utilizing paved or earthen surfaces with runoff channels of varying designs. Liquid-solid separation systems include settling tanks, basins, channels, mechanical separation systems, evaporation ponds and dehydrators. Li~uid manure storage systems utilize manure pits, earthen storage basins (i.e., lagoons), and aboveground Wo 97/21647 PCT/US96/20453 tanks.
It is therefore a principal object of this invention to provide a method of stabilizing odors in manure, and particularly ~n i m~ 1 manure, wherein the manure is comprised 5 of liquid and solids.
A further object of this invention is to provide a process of stabilizing odors in manure which will be effective in treating the manure in a large variety ol~
collection devices.
A still further object of thi~ invention is to provide a method of stabilizing odors in manure which is effective in manures of differing composition.
A still further object of this invention i s to provide a method of sta~ilizing odors in manure which will preserve the fertilizer potential of the manure.
A still further obiect of this invention is to provide a method of sta~ilizing odors in manure which i5 economical and cost-effective.
A still further object of this invention is to provide a method of stabilizing odors in manure which will l~e environmentally acceptable.
These and other objects will be apparent to those skilled in the art.
SUMMARY OF THE lNv~;NllON
This invention involves the method of adding lime, fly ash, cement kiln dust or the like, or mixtures thereof, with manure comprised of liquid and solids in sufficient ~uantity to raise the pH thereof to a mi n; mllm of~ 7, a -~r; level of lO.5, and an optimum of 9.5 to m; n; mi ze the release of ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and other odor producing elements from the manure.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
Fig. l is a bar graph showing the change in odor threshold versus time after start up for three levels of alka- ine addition versus an untreated control. The levels of W O 97/21647 PCT~US96/20q53 treatment were 5 lb, 2.5 lb, and 1.25 lb additive added per 1 lb of solids in the manure;
Fig. 2 i8 a bar graph showing the change in pH of t treated manure versus time after start up for three levels of 5 alkaline addition versus an untreated control. The levels of treatment were 5 lb, 2.5 lb, and 1.25 lb additive added per 1 lb o~ solids in the manure;
Fig. 3 is a bar graph showing the change in ammonia levels of the headspace of a manure storage tank versus time 10 after start up for three levels of alkaline addition versus an untreated control. The levels of treatment were 5 lb, 2.5 lb, and 1.25 lb additive added per 1 lb of solids in the manure;
Fig. 4 is a bar graph showing the pH values of five 15 treated samples of manure compared to the untreated control sample with 0.25 lbs of additive added per 1 lb of solids in the manure;
Fig. 5 is a bar graph showing the pH values of flve treated samples of manure compared to the untreated control 20 sample with 0.5 lbs of additive added per 1 lb of solids in the manure;
Fig. 6 is a bar graph showing the odor intensity values of five treated samples of manure compared to the untreated control sample with 0.25 lbs of additive added per 1 lb of 25 solids in the manure;
Fig. 7 is a bar graph showing the odo~ intensity values of five treated samples of manure compared to the untreated control sample with 0.5 lbs of additive added per 1 lb of solids in the manure;
Fig. 8 is an elevational view of one of the laboratory test apparatus used to determine the utility of this invention .
Fig. 9 is a bar graph showing the odor threshold from the liquid surface of treated samples compared to an untreated sample as contained in earthen storage at various times of the year; and Fig. 10 is a bar graph showing the change in odor W O 97/21647 PCTnUS96/20453 threshold from the liquid surface of treated samples contained in concrete storage versus time.
DES~RIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT
The purpose of this invention is to add sufficient materials, primarily alkaline materials, to manure, comprised of both liquid and solids, to raise the pH thereof to an optimum level of 9.5 which will ~; n; m; ze the release of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide and other odor producing gases.
The materials to be used as the additive to the manure are lime, kiln dust, fly ash, or derivatives thereof, including mixtures of these ingredients and other materials derived from calcining processes, combustion by-products and powdered adsorbents cont~;ning activated carbon and/or dry clay. The 1~ major constituents of cement kiln dust and fly ashes are oxides of calcium, silica, aluminum, and sulfur.
The process of this invention can be conducted wherever the ~n; ~l manure is collected. However, manures collected in pits, holding tank~ or earthen basins are most convenient for implementation of the process. While the process is useful for the treatment of any type of waste, it is particularly suitable for the treatment of ~n; ~l wastes, especially in ~n; ~l and poultry confinement operations. The term "animal wastes" as used herein will be understood to include poultry manure as well as ~n; -1 manure.
~ he principal thrust of this invention is to treat the ~n; ~1 wastes so as to settle the solids in the manure with respect to the liquid portion thereof, and to adjust the pH
of the manure, and particularly the liquid portion thereof to a level that will m;n;m;ze the release of the odorous compounds from the manure. Specifically, the pH is adjusted to an optimum level of 9.5 which will mini ; ze the release of both ammonia and hydrogen sulfide which are two of the principal odor causing factors. This technique also is believed to suppress the release of other odor causing compounds. By suppressing the release of ammonia, the use of the treated manure as fertilizer is substantially enhanced.
-WO 97/21647 PCT~US96/20453 The admixture used for increasing the pH of manure in its natural state (normally in the range of 6.0 to 7.0) is usually, but not always, an alkaline material comprised of one or more of lime, kiln dust or fly ash, or derivatives thereof. Kiln dust and fly ash are plentiful and generally less expensive than lime.
The admixtures are preferably added to the manure at the rate of Q.2 to 1 lb of admixtures to 1 lb of manure, respectively, by dry weight of solids. They can be added by special equipment as described in the Field Test set forth hereafter, or through any convenient material hAn~ling system. The admixture is added periodically to the manure to maintain the pH thereof within the above defined range.
Thorough agitation of the mixture of manure and additives to provide a homogenous mixture is required in all applications.
Under some conditions, daily applications may be necessary.
Daily checking of pH values is not necessary, but may be required if problems are encountered.
Alkaline by-products from power plants, portland cement plants, and lime manufacturing plants were evaluated to determine the effectiveness of controlling swine odors from manure storage. Five products were tested in the laboratory and one of the products was chosen to be further evaluated in the field. The odor evaluation was done with an olfactometer using the triangular-forced-choice method. The study showed that odors are substantially reduced using all the byproducts tested in the laboratory. The cement kiln dust was chosen for the field study.
Swine manure storage facilities are the major potential odor sou~ces from swine operations. Alkaline treatment of manure can help reduce odors from the manure storage and during land application. When the waste is collected and ~ stored, it undergoes decomposition due to the metabolic actions of microorganisms. The manure gases of odor concern are ammonia, h~drogen sulfide, and volatile odorous compounds.
W O 97/21647 PCTnUS96/20453 E~ P~E 1 Pilot Study This pilot study utilized the alkaline byproduct, cement kiln dust (CKD) and manure from the Iowa State Nutrition ~esearch Facility. The CKD was provided by conventional feed truck fed into a CemenTech LSP-3000 liquid sludge processor ~see U.S. Patent No. 5,284,578).
The initial rates of CKD to manure on a dry weight basis were 2.3 lb to 1 lb, and 0.5 lb to 1 lb. The manure used in the field test had an actual solids content of 0.8 percent.
Adjusted addition rates based on the actual solids content were 5 lb, 2.5 lb and 1.25 lb additive to 1 lb manure solids.
Odor threshold is the ratio of the number of volumes of fresh air required to mix with one volume of odorous air so that the odor can hardly be detected. CKD addition to manure provided significant odor reduction during the mixing, storage and final land application of the manure used in this field test. The manure used in all four treatments was agitated thoroughly just prior to air quality sample collection on day 36 of the trial. Analysis of the final sample showed an odor threshold of 1250 for the untreated control compared to 59,107, and 362 for treatments 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Detectable odor levels were effectively reduced by 95 percant, 91 percent, and 71 percent at the three treatment levels compared to the untreated control.
The treated manure in the pilot test was agitated and field applied on day 42 of the trial. Air samples were taken from the application sites and analyzed for odor thresholds. Low odor thresholds (less than 8~ were found for all treatments.
It was determined that the addition of the CKD material caused the solids in the liquid manure to settle. This settling phenomenon is very important because it allows a watercap to form over the settled solids. This watercap provides a physical barrier between the odorous solid material and the atmosphere. The watercap also ~; n;m; zes the oxygen content in the solid material which effectively inhibits the bacterial activity in the solids which in part .
is responsible for generation of odorous gases. The CKD also increases the pH level of the liquid existing above the solids to optimum pH levels of 9 . 5 which suppresses the A production of hydrogen sulfide gas and aids in ~; n;~; zing the 5 release of ammonia as well as other odor producing gases.
Laboratory Study The laboratory study used five dif~erent alkaline byproducts including combustion residues (fly ashes), lime 10 kiln dusts and cement kiln dusts. Calcium oxide was a major oxide component in each of the alkaline byproducts used. The manure ~or the experiment was ~rom an 1100 head swine finishing building. The manure was collected from a small pit at the end of the building into which the manure was scraped 15 as needed, generally, twice daily. The manure was agitated prior to collection for treatment in the laboratory.
Twelve plastic columns of the type Shown in Fig- 8 were fifteen inches in diameter by 48 inches high and were filled to a level of thirty six inches with manure and the alkaline 20 byproduct. The material was mixed with the manure prior to filling the columns. Two levels of addition of five different alkaline byproducts, 0.25 lb and 0.5 lb added to one ~b of solids in the manure, and one untreated control were used in the experiment. The manure had a solids content 25 o~ 4.7 percent.
Each column was sealed and one-half cubic feet per minute o~ air was continuously pumped into the column headspace and exhausted to the outside. The air in the room surrounding the tanks was maintained between 65 to 70 degrees 30 Fahrenheit.
Air samples were taken ~rom the headspace on day 3, 10, and 21 to evaluate the odor, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide level. Liquid sampling included tests for pH, TNP (CCE~, Potassium, Nitro~en (Total), Nitrogen (Ammonia~, Nitrate ~ 35 +Nitrite and Phosphorus.
Figures 4 and 5 show the change of pH with time ~or each product. As the t~eatment level went from O.Z5 lb to 0.5 lb CA 022l2987 l997-08-l4 of product per lb of solids in the manure, the pH increased.
The manure without treatment (6) had the lowest pH of approximately 7Ø The pM basically increased to the highest level at day lO and decreased back to a slightly lower level 5 at day 21 for the 0.25 lb of additive per lb of solids in the manure. Figure 5 shows the pH was between 8.5 to 9.2 for the products at a level of 0.5 lb of additive per lb of solids in the manure. The pH remained almost constant throughout the total test period.
The ammonia levels in the headspace of the columns were higher than the control in all cases. It can be observed that the pH at the lower level of additive resulted in 2 to 5 times higher ammonia level than the control. The higher level of product resulted in 4 to 17 times higher ammonia level.
Table 1. Average ammonia level in headspace of columns.
Level of TreatmentLevel of Treatment Treatment 0.25 LB/solids .50 LB/solids (NH3 ppm) ~NH3 ppm) 11.5 61 2 14.5 38 3 11.5 17 4 15.5 24 7.0 12 6 ~control) 3.5 3.5 The odor levels in Figures 6 and 7 show the decrease of odor threshold as the experiment is conducted. The figures show the reduction of odors to that on day three. Figure 7 shows 20 that the additional additive continues to reduce the odors generated in most cases. The control shows very little change in odor level during the entire study.
Table 2 shows more variability within each product level than between the levels oE product added. The control is also 2~ in the middle of the range in all chemicals evaluated. The chemical analysis for two of the 0.25 lb products added per W 097/21647 PCT/US96nO453 1 lb of manure solids was not analyzed.
Table 2. Chemical analysis of manure samples from the columns at the end o~ the experiment.
No.Chemical Components i K N(T) N(A) NOx P
% % % ~ %
2A 0.36 0.39 0.28 7.9 0.26 3A 0.25 0.41 0.30 5.8 0.24 4A 0.23 0.38 0.30 9.4 0.14 6A 0.28 0.42 0.30 5.5 0.27 lB 0.24 0.42 0.30 8.5 0.24 2B 0.29 0.43 0.27 6.0 0.29 3B 0.24 0.44 0.27 5.6 0.28 4B 0.29 0.43 0.30 8.0 0.26 5B 0.23 0.43 0.31 6.6 .028 Note: 2A to 5A is at the 0. 25 LB additive 6A is the control 10 lB to 5B is at the 0. 5 ~B additive in the same order as the product numbers K (potassium) N(T) Itotal nitrogen) N(A) ~ammonia nitrogen) 1~ NOx (nitrate-nitrite) P (phosphorus) EX~MP~E 3 Field Study The same 1100 head finishing building from which manure was collected for the previously described laboratory study was utilized for this Field Study. This production facility was e~uipped with an under-slat scraping system and an earthen manure storage basin. The e~uipment utilized in the process was installed at the site in the spring of 1995. The equipment included a 4 ton silo for alkaline byproduct storage, a volumetric metering device with electronic programmable controller, a 3,000 gallon manure mixing tank, and an agitator pump to mix the product in the manure and to pump the treated manure into the earthen basin.
The building was scraped twice daily and the manure gravity flowed from the swine building to the 3,000 gallon buried concrete mixing tank. The operator measured the depth of the manure in the tan3~ and entered the mass of the alkaline byproduct into the controller based upon the manure lO volume. The remainder of the processing of the material was automatic based upon preset parameters. The mixing pump was set to operate for 3 minutes after the material was augered into the underground manure tank and then the treated manure was pumped into the earthen basin.
The alkaline byproduct utilized in the field study was the product 4 analyzed in the laboratory study. Initial addition rate of alkaline byproduct was .25 lb to l lb of dry manure solids. When the project was initiated, it was estimated that the earthen basin contained approximately 20 240,000 gallons of manure. Z~lk~l ine byproduct ~see above) was added to the basin on June 7, 1995 by complete agitation of the basin through the 3,000 gallon mixing tank to bring the ratio of alkaline byproduct to manure solids in the earthen basin to the desired treatment level.
The production facility utilized as the untreated control was selected as it was similar to the treated facility. The age, gender, and genetics of the hogs and the feeding rations used at both facilities were c-ose to identical. The control facility was located within 20 miles 30 of the l~reated facility.
The data from the treated earthen basin (Figure 9) showed that the odor generation was significantly higher during the first part o~ the summer. These results led to a decision to increase the addition ratio to .3 lb alkaline 35 material to l lb manure solids in early July. It was also discovered by depth measurement that we had drastically underestimated the amount of manure in the basin. The W O 97/216~7 PCT~US96/20453 corrected dose rate of alkaline material was added to the earthen basin on July 11, 1995.
As the field study progressed, the reduction in odor was shown to continue to increase with time. ~he control unit had significantly higher odor levels than the treated unit. The normal flow of material added on a day to day basis was at the rate of 0.3 lb per lb of solids. The solids was based upon 4 percent solids to account for using spray water for cooling the pigs during warm weather.
The gases produced from the surface of the earthen basin were evaluated for odor, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide.
Liquid samples were taken and si ;1~ analysis to the laboratory study was made. Downwind odor evaluation at the road was measured with a scentometer.
The odor level was significantly lower when standing on the downwind side of the earthen basin with treatment. The graph in Figure 9 shows that the odor was approximately 55 to 60 percent less in the treated slurry than in the control.
The odor level on September 10 is shown to be as strong as on the control, but lower than typical for the control unit. It was observed that a change in weather accompanied that particular day. The same observation was made on another day of similar climatic conditions; however the odor level was not as strong as on the control slurry basin.
The odor downwind was significantly affected by the treatment of the slurry. Often times, the odor from the treated manure could not be detected at a distance of 500 feet from the basin.
The following observations and conclusions can be drawn from the study:
The odor level can be significantly reduced by using alkaline byproducts at the levels tested.
. The effect of the nutrient value of the manure was less than the variation between the samples.
. The downwind odor level was significantly reduced by the use of the product.
WO97/21647 PCTrUS96/20453 EXl~MPLE 4 Field Study In this field study manure was treated from a 1,~00 head finishing ~acility. This system utilized slatted floor, scraper and pull plug to transfer manure to a 600,000 gallon cylindrical concrete holding basin. Equipment utilized on this site included a tractor (PT0) driven agitation pump to homogeneously blend the alkaline byproduct with the stored manure. The alkaline byproduct used in this study was a fluidized bed fly ash. The fly ash was delivered to the site by a pneumatic tanker truck and transferred to a mobile feeding system. This mobile feeding system delivered the alkaline byproduct to the manure storage tan~ at a ratio of 0.3 lb alkaline byproduct to 1 lb of manure solids.
There was approximately 360,000 gallons of manure in the storage basin prior to alkaline treatment. Approximately 80,000 gallons of fresh manure was added to the basin simultaneously with the addition of the alkaline byproduct.
Solids concentration of the manure was estimated to be 4.00~.
Mixing was initiated prior to addition of alkaline byproduct to the basin, continued during addition, and extended for a time period following completion of addition to ensure homogeneity of the mixture.
The gases produced from the surface of the concrete basin were evaluated for odor, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide.
Liquid samples were taken and similar analysis to the laboratory study was made. Downwind odor evaluation at the road was measured with a scentometer.
The data from the concrete storage basin (Figure 10) showed that the odor generation was significantly higher before alkaline treatment. The reduction of odor detected immediately after treatment was maintained during the extended storage time with no agitation. Reduced odor levels were maintained during agitation, prior to, and during field application.
The odor level was significantly lower when st~n~i ng on the downwind side of the concrete basin. The graph indicates that the odor was approximately 90-95% less in the treated slurry compared to the raw manure. The downwind observations during the field application reflected the same results as in the storage basin.
. .
Conclusion From the foregoing, it is seen that the process of this invention will permit manure comprised o~ liquid and solids to have the odors thereof substantially stabilized through the adjustment of the pH of the manure to a level of approximately 7.5 to 9.5 wherein the release of the principal odor producing gases hydrogen sulfide and ammonia will be substantially m; n; ~; zed along with other odor producing gases which release at pH levels beyond this range. ~his invention therefore will achieve at least its stated objectives.
BACKGROUND O~ T~E LNV~'l'lON
~ The treating of ~ni~-l and human wastes for various purposes has been taking place for centuries. ~n modern times, this activity has centered primarily on municipal sewage and waste water treatment plants, and on manure collected at livestock and poultr~ feeding facilities. In regard to municipal treatment plants, much attention has been directed to dewatering the sewage and then adding various alkaline materials to the resulting sludge to raise the pH of the mixture to 12 and above. This is done to stabilize the pathogenic bacteria whereupon the sludge is more suitable for use as fertilizer and is environmentally acceptable.
Regulations o~ the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) closely limit this activity. Examples of this technology are shown in U.S. Patents Nos. 5,277,826;
4,902,431; 4,781,842 and 4,554,002.
In the area of ~n;m~l and poultry wastes, the odor emitted by the manure, has been the primary concern, and while this matter has been addressed (e.g. U.S. Patent No.
4,902,431), no universally acceptable manure odor stabilizing processes have been developed to effectively combat this problem. ~n; ~1 and poultry wastes appear in different locations and different holding devices in a multitude of ~n; ~l and poultry confinement buildings which have emerged in great numbers over the last Z5 years. These facilities include slotted floors and solid ~1Oors from which manures are collected by manual or mechanical scraping or flushing;
gutters; recirculation flush pits; and gravity flow channels.
They also include open feed lots utilizing paved or earthen surfaces with runoff channels of varying designs. Liquid-solid separation systems include settling tanks, basins, channels, mechanical separation systems, evaporation ponds and dehydrators. Li~uid manure storage systems utilize manure pits, earthen storage basins (i.e., lagoons), and aboveground Wo 97/21647 PCT/US96/20453 tanks.
It is therefore a principal object of this invention to provide a method of stabilizing odors in manure, and particularly ~n i m~ 1 manure, wherein the manure is comprised 5 of liquid and solids.
A further object of this invention is to provide a process of stabilizing odors in manure which will be effective in treating the manure in a large variety ol~
collection devices.
A still further object of thi~ invention is to provide a method of stabilizing odors in manure which is effective in manures of differing composition.
A still further object of this invention i s to provide a method of sta~ilizing odors in manure which will preserve the fertilizer potential of the manure.
A still further obiect of this invention is to provide a method of sta~ilizing odors in manure which i5 economical and cost-effective.
A still further object of this invention is to provide a method of stabilizing odors in manure which will l~e environmentally acceptable.
These and other objects will be apparent to those skilled in the art.
SUMMARY OF THE lNv~;NllON
This invention involves the method of adding lime, fly ash, cement kiln dust or the like, or mixtures thereof, with manure comprised of liquid and solids in sufficient ~uantity to raise the pH thereof to a mi n; mllm of~ 7, a -~r; level of lO.5, and an optimum of 9.5 to m; n; mi ze the release of ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and other odor producing elements from the manure.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
Fig. l is a bar graph showing the change in odor threshold versus time after start up for three levels of alka- ine addition versus an untreated control. The levels of W O 97/21647 PCT~US96/20q53 treatment were 5 lb, 2.5 lb, and 1.25 lb additive added per 1 lb of solids in the manure;
Fig. 2 i8 a bar graph showing the change in pH of t treated manure versus time after start up for three levels of 5 alkaline addition versus an untreated control. The levels of treatment were 5 lb, 2.5 lb, and 1.25 lb additive added per 1 lb o~ solids in the manure;
Fig. 3 is a bar graph showing the change in ammonia levels of the headspace of a manure storage tank versus time 10 after start up for three levels of alkaline addition versus an untreated control. The levels of treatment were 5 lb, 2.5 lb, and 1.25 lb additive added per 1 lb of solids in the manure;
Fig. 4 is a bar graph showing the pH values of five 15 treated samples of manure compared to the untreated control sample with 0.25 lbs of additive added per 1 lb of solids in the manure;
Fig. 5 is a bar graph showing the pH values of flve treated samples of manure compared to the untreated control 20 sample with 0.5 lbs of additive added per 1 lb of solids in the manure;
Fig. 6 is a bar graph showing the odor intensity values of five treated samples of manure compared to the untreated control sample with 0.25 lbs of additive added per 1 lb of 25 solids in the manure;
Fig. 7 is a bar graph showing the odo~ intensity values of five treated samples of manure compared to the untreated control sample with 0.5 lbs of additive added per 1 lb of solids in the manure;
Fig. 8 is an elevational view of one of the laboratory test apparatus used to determine the utility of this invention .
Fig. 9 is a bar graph showing the odor threshold from the liquid surface of treated samples compared to an untreated sample as contained in earthen storage at various times of the year; and Fig. 10 is a bar graph showing the change in odor W O 97/21647 PCTnUS96/20453 threshold from the liquid surface of treated samples contained in concrete storage versus time.
DES~RIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT
The purpose of this invention is to add sufficient materials, primarily alkaline materials, to manure, comprised of both liquid and solids, to raise the pH thereof to an optimum level of 9.5 which will ~; n; m; ze the release of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide and other odor producing gases.
The materials to be used as the additive to the manure are lime, kiln dust, fly ash, or derivatives thereof, including mixtures of these ingredients and other materials derived from calcining processes, combustion by-products and powdered adsorbents cont~;ning activated carbon and/or dry clay. The 1~ major constituents of cement kiln dust and fly ashes are oxides of calcium, silica, aluminum, and sulfur.
The process of this invention can be conducted wherever the ~n; ~l manure is collected. However, manures collected in pits, holding tank~ or earthen basins are most convenient for implementation of the process. While the process is useful for the treatment of any type of waste, it is particularly suitable for the treatment of ~n; ~l wastes, especially in ~n; ~l and poultry confinement operations. The term "animal wastes" as used herein will be understood to include poultry manure as well as ~n; -1 manure.
~ he principal thrust of this invention is to treat the ~n; ~1 wastes so as to settle the solids in the manure with respect to the liquid portion thereof, and to adjust the pH
of the manure, and particularly the liquid portion thereof to a level that will m;n;m;ze the release of the odorous compounds from the manure. Specifically, the pH is adjusted to an optimum level of 9.5 which will mini ; ze the release of both ammonia and hydrogen sulfide which are two of the principal odor causing factors. This technique also is believed to suppress the release of other odor causing compounds. By suppressing the release of ammonia, the use of the treated manure as fertilizer is substantially enhanced.
-WO 97/21647 PCT~US96/20453 The admixture used for increasing the pH of manure in its natural state (normally in the range of 6.0 to 7.0) is usually, but not always, an alkaline material comprised of one or more of lime, kiln dust or fly ash, or derivatives thereof. Kiln dust and fly ash are plentiful and generally less expensive than lime.
The admixtures are preferably added to the manure at the rate of Q.2 to 1 lb of admixtures to 1 lb of manure, respectively, by dry weight of solids. They can be added by special equipment as described in the Field Test set forth hereafter, or through any convenient material hAn~ling system. The admixture is added periodically to the manure to maintain the pH thereof within the above defined range.
Thorough agitation of the mixture of manure and additives to provide a homogenous mixture is required in all applications.
Under some conditions, daily applications may be necessary.
Daily checking of pH values is not necessary, but may be required if problems are encountered.
Alkaline by-products from power plants, portland cement plants, and lime manufacturing plants were evaluated to determine the effectiveness of controlling swine odors from manure storage. Five products were tested in the laboratory and one of the products was chosen to be further evaluated in the field. The odor evaluation was done with an olfactometer using the triangular-forced-choice method. The study showed that odors are substantially reduced using all the byproducts tested in the laboratory. The cement kiln dust was chosen for the field study.
Swine manure storage facilities are the major potential odor sou~ces from swine operations. Alkaline treatment of manure can help reduce odors from the manure storage and during land application. When the waste is collected and ~ stored, it undergoes decomposition due to the metabolic actions of microorganisms. The manure gases of odor concern are ammonia, h~drogen sulfide, and volatile odorous compounds.
W O 97/21647 PCTnUS96/20453 E~ P~E 1 Pilot Study This pilot study utilized the alkaline byproduct, cement kiln dust (CKD) and manure from the Iowa State Nutrition ~esearch Facility. The CKD was provided by conventional feed truck fed into a CemenTech LSP-3000 liquid sludge processor ~see U.S. Patent No. 5,284,578).
The initial rates of CKD to manure on a dry weight basis were 2.3 lb to 1 lb, and 0.5 lb to 1 lb. The manure used in the field test had an actual solids content of 0.8 percent.
Adjusted addition rates based on the actual solids content were 5 lb, 2.5 lb and 1.25 lb additive to 1 lb manure solids.
Odor threshold is the ratio of the number of volumes of fresh air required to mix with one volume of odorous air so that the odor can hardly be detected. CKD addition to manure provided significant odor reduction during the mixing, storage and final land application of the manure used in this field test. The manure used in all four treatments was agitated thoroughly just prior to air quality sample collection on day 36 of the trial. Analysis of the final sample showed an odor threshold of 1250 for the untreated control compared to 59,107, and 362 for treatments 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Detectable odor levels were effectively reduced by 95 percant, 91 percent, and 71 percent at the three treatment levels compared to the untreated control.
The treated manure in the pilot test was agitated and field applied on day 42 of the trial. Air samples were taken from the application sites and analyzed for odor thresholds. Low odor thresholds (less than 8~ were found for all treatments.
It was determined that the addition of the CKD material caused the solids in the liquid manure to settle. This settling phenomenon is very important because it allows a watercap to form over the settled solids. This watercap provides a physical barrier between the odorous solid material and the atmosphere. The watercap also ~; n;m; zes the oxygen content in the solid material which effectively inhibits the bacterial activity in the solids which in part .
is responsible for generation of odorous gases. The CKD also increases the pH level of the liquid existing above the solids to optimum pH levels of 9 . 5 which suppresses the A production of hydrogen sulfide gas and aids in ~; n;~; zing the 5 release of ammonia as well as other odor producing gases.
Laboratory Study The laboratory study used five dif~erent alkaline byproducts including combustion residues (fly ashes), lime 10 kiln dusts and cement kiln dusts. Calcium oxide was a major oxide component in each of the alkaline byproducts used. The manure ~or the experiment was ~rom an 1100 head swine finishing building. The manure was collected from a small pit at the end of the building into which the manure was scraped 15 as needed, generally, twice daily. The manure was agitated prior to collection for treatment in the laboratory.
Twelve plastic columns of the type Shown in Fig- 8 were fifteen inches in diameter by 48 inches high and were filled to a level of thirty six inches with manure and the alkaline 20 byproduct. The material was mixed with the manure prior to filling the columns. Two levels of addition of five different alkaline byproducts, 0.25 lb and 0.5 lb added to one ~b of solids in the manure, and one untreated control were used in the experiment. The manure had a solids content 25 o~ 4.7 percent.
Each column was sealed and one-half cubic feet per minute o~ air was continuously pumped into the column headspace and exhausted to the outside. The air in the room surrounding the tanks was maintained between 65 to 70 degrees 30 Fahrenheit.
Air samples were taken ~rom the headspace on day 3, 10, and 21 to evaluate the odor, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide level. Liquid sampling included tests for pH, TNP (CCE~, Potassium, Nitro~en (Total), Nitrogen (Ammonia~, Nitrate ~ 35 +Nitrite and Phosphorus.
Figures 4 and 5 show the change of pH with time ~or each product. As the t~eatment level went from O.Z5 lb to 0.5 lb CA 022l2987 l997-08-l4 of product per lb of solids in the manure, the pH increased.
The manure without treatment (6) had the lowest pH of approximately 7Ø The pM basically increased to the highest level at day lO and decreased back to a slightly lower level 5 at day 21 for the 0.25 lb of additive per lb of solids in the manure. Figure 5 shows the pH was between 8.5 to 9.2 for the products at a level of 0.5 lb of additive per lb of solids in the manure. The pH remained almost constant throughout the total test period.
The ammonia levels in the headspace of the columns were higher than the control in all cases. It can be observed that the pH at the lower level of additive resulted in 2 to 5 times higher ammonia level than the control. The higher level of product resulted in 4 to 17 times higher ammonia level.
Table 1. Average ammonia level in headspace of columns.
Level of TreatmentLevel of Treatment Treatment 0.25 LB/solids .50 LB/solids (NH3 ppm) ~NH3 ppm) 11.5 61 2 14.5 38 3 11.5 17 4 15.5 24 7.0 12 6 ~control) 3.5 3.5 The odor levels in Figures 6 and 7 show the decrease of odor threshold as the experiment is conducted. The figures show the reduction of odors to that on day three. Figure 7 shows 20 that the additional additive continues to reduce the odors generated in most cases. The control shows very little change in odor level during the entire study.
Table 2 shows more variability within each product level than between the levels oE product added. The control is also 2~ in the middle of the range in all chemicals evaluated. The chemical analysis for two of the 0.25 lb products added per W 097/21647 PCT/US96nO453 1 lb of manure solids was not analyzed.
Table 2. Chemical analysis of manure samples from the columns at the end o~ the experiment.
No.Chemical Components i K N(T) N(A) NOx P
% % % ~ %
2A 0.36 0.39 0.28 7.9 0.26 3A 0.25 0.41 0.30 5.8 0.24 4A 0.23 0.38 0.30 9.4 0.14 6A 0.28 0.42 0.30 5.5 0.27 lB 0.24 0.42 0.30 8.5 0.24 2B 0.29 0.43 0.27 6.0 0.29 3B 0.24 0.44 0.27 5.6 0.28 4B 0.29 0.43 0.30 8.0 0.26 5B 0.23 0.43 0.31 6.6 .028 Note: 2A to 5A is at the 0. 25 LB additive 6A is the control 10 lB to 5B is at the 0. 5 ~B additive in the same order as the product numbers K (potassium) N(T) Itotal nitrogen) N(A) ~ammonia nitrogen) 1~ NOx (nitrate-nitrite) P (phosphorus) EX~MP~E 3 Field Study The same 1100 head finishing building from which manure was collected for the previously described laboratory study was utilized for this Field Study. This production facility was e~uipped with an under-slat scraping system and an earthen manure storage basin. The e~uipment utilized in the process was installed at the site in the spring of 1995. The equipment included a 4 ton silo for alkaline byproduct storage, a volumetric metering device with electronic programmable controller, a 3,000 gallon manure mixing tank, and an agitator pump to mix the product in the manure and to pump the treated manure into the earthen basin.
The building was scraped twice daily and the manure gravity flowed from the swine building to the 3,000 gallon buried concrete mixing tank. The operator measured the depth of the manure in the tan3~ and entered the mass of the alkaline byproduct into the controller based upon the manure lO volume. The remainder of the processing of the material was automatic based upon preset parameters. The mixing pump was set to operate for 3 minutes after the material was augered into the underground manure tank and then the treated manure was pumped into the earthen basin.
The alkaline byproduct utilized in the field study was the product 4 analyzed in the laboratory study. Initial addition rate of alkaline byproduct was .25 lb to l lb of dry manure solids. When the project was initiated, it was estimated that the earthen basin contained approximately 20 240,000 gallons of manure. Z~lk~l ine byproduct ~see above) was added to the basin on June 7, 1995 by complete agitation of the basin through the 3,000 gallon mixing tank to bring the ratio of alkaline byproduct to manure solids in the earthen basin to the desired treatment level.
The production facility utilized as the untreated control was selected as it was similar to the treated facility. The age, gender, and genetics of the hogs and the feeding rations used at both facilities were c-ose to identical. The control facility was located within 20 miles 30 of the l~reated facility.
The data from the treated earthen basin (Figure 9) showed that the odor generation was significantly higher during the first part o~ the summer. These results led to a decision to increase the addition ratio to .3 lb alkaline 35 material to l lb manure solids in early July. It was also discovered by depth measurement that we had drastically underestimated the amount of manure in the basin. The W O 97/216~7 PCT~US96/20453 corrected dose rate of alkaline material was added to the earthen basin on July 11, 1995.
As the field study progressed, the reduction in odor was shown to continue to increase with time. ~he control unit had significantly higher odor levels than the treated unit. The normal flow of material added on a day to day basis was at the rate of 0.3 lb per lb of solids. The solids was based upon 4 percent solids to account for using spray water for cooling the pigs during warm weather.
The gases produced from the surface of the earthen basin were evaluated for odor, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide.
Liquid samples were taken and si ;1~ analysis to the laboratory study was made. Downwind odor evaluation at the road was measured with a scentometer.
The odor level was significantly lower when standing on the downwind side of the earthen basin with treatment. The graph in Figure 9 shows that the odor was approximately 55 to 60 percent less in the treated slurry than in the control.
The odor level on September 10 is shown to be as strong as on the control, but lower than typical for the control unit. It was observed that a change in weather accompanied that particular day. The same observation was made on another day of similar climatic conditions; however the odor level was not as strong as on the control slurry basin.
The odor downwind was significantly affected by the treatment of the slurry. Often times, the odor from the treated manure could not be detected at a distance of 500 feet from the basin.
The following observations and conclusions can be drawn from the study:
The odor level can be significantly reduced by using alkaline byproducts at the levels tested.
. The effect of the nutrient value of the manure was less than the variation between the samples.
. The downwind odor level was significantly reduced by the use of the product.
WO97/21647 PCTrUS96/20453 EXl~MPLE 4 Field Study In this field study manure was treated from a 1,~00 head finishing ~acility. This system utilized slatted floor, scraper and pull plug to transfer manure to a 600,000 gallon cylindrical concrete holding basin. Equipment utilized on this site included a tractor (PT0) driven agitation pump to homogeneously blend the alkaline byproduct with the stored manure. The alkaline byproduct used in this study was a fluidized bed fly ash. The fly ash was delivered to the site by a pneumatic tanker truck and transferred to a mobile feeding system. This mobile feeding system delivered the alkaline byproduct to the manure storage tan~ at a ratio of 0.3 lb alkaline byproduct to 1 lb of manure solids.
There was approximately 360,000 gallons of manure in the storage basin prior to alkaline treatment. Approximately 80,000 gallons of fresh manure was added to the basin simultaneously with the addition of the alkaline byproduct.
Solids concentration of the manure was estimated to be 4.00~.
Mixing was initiated prior to addition of alkaline byproduct to the basin, continued during addition, and extended for a time period following completion of addition to ensure homogeneity of the mixture.
The gases produced from the surface of the concrete basin were evaluated for odor, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide.
Liquid samples were taken and similar analysis to the laboratory study was made. Downwind odor evaluation at the road was measured with a scentometer.
The data from the concrete storage basin (Figure 10) showed that the odor generation was significantly higher before alkaline treatment. The reduction of odor detected immediately after treatment was maintained during the extended storage time with no agitation. Reduced odor levels were maintained during agitation, prior to, and during field application.
The odor level was significantly lower when st~n~i ng on the downwind side of the concrete basin. The graph indicates that the odor was approximately 90-95% less in the treated slurry compared to the raw manure. The downwind observations during the field application reflected the same results as in the storage basin.
. .
Conclusion From the foregoing, it is seen that the process of this invention will permit manure comprised o~ liquid and solids to have the odors thereof substantially stabilized through the adjustment of the pH of the manure to a level of approximately 7.5 to 9.5 wherein the release of the principal odor producing gases hydrogen sulfide and ammonia will be substantially m; n; ~; zed along with other odor producing gases which release at pH levels beyond this range. ~his invention therefore will achieve at least its stated objectives.
Claims (9)
1. A method of stabilizing odors in animal manure, comprising: obtaining a quantity of animal manure comprising water and solids which contain sources of odorous compounds including ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, substantially maintaining the water content of the manure, adjusting the pH
of the manure to a level that will minimize the release of odorous compounds including ammonia and hydrogen sulfide to the surrounding air from said manure by mixing with said manure an admixture material to obtain a homogeneous mixture, and maintaining the adjusted pH level at a substantially constant value so as to stabilize the release of odorous compounds from the manure.
of the manure to a level that will minimize the release of odorous compounds including ammonia and hydrogen sulfide to the surrounding air from said manure by mixing with said manure an admixture material to obtain a homogeneous mixture, and maintaining the adjusted pH level at a substantially constant value so as to stabilize the release of odorous compounds from the manure.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein said pH level is in the range of 7.0 to 10.5.
3. The method of claim 1 wherein said pH level is in the range of 7.0 - 9.5.
4. The method of claim 1 wherein said pH level is adjusted by adding to said manure a material selected from the group of kiln dust or fly ash.
5. The method of claim 1 wherein said admixture material is selected from the group consisting of lime, cement kiln dust, combustion byproducts and powdered adsorbents containing activated carbon, and powdered adsorbents containing dry clay.
6. The method of claim 1 wherein said admixture material is added at a ratio of approximately 0.2 to 1.0 parts to 1 part manure on the dry weight basis of solids in each.
7. The method of claim 1 wherein said pH level is adjusted to said level by adding to said manure a quantity of alkaline material.
8. The method of claim 1 wherein said admixture is added to said manure so that portions of the admixture cling to solids to cause them to settle to a level below the water in said manure.
9. A method of stabilizing odors in animal manure, comprising: obtaining a quantity of animal manure comprising water and solids which contain sources of odorous compounds including ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, substantially maintaining the water content of the manure, adjusting the pH
of the manure to a level that will minimize the release of odorous compounds including ammonia and hydrogen sulfide to the surrounding air from said manure by mixing with said manure an admixture material in an amount of from about 0.25 to about 0.5 parts to one part manure on the dry weight basis of solids of each to obtain a homogeneous mixture, and maintaining the adjusted pH level at a substantially constant value so as to stabilize the release of odorous compounds from the manure.
of the manure to a level that will minimize the release of odorous compounds including ammonia and hydrogen sulfide to the surrounding air from said manure by mixing with said manure an admixture material in an amount of from about 0.25 to about 0.5 parts to one part manure on the dry weight basis of solids of each to obtain a homogeneous mixture, and maintaining the adjusted pH level at a substantially constant value so as to stabilize the release of odorous compounds from the manure.
Applications Claiming Priority (2)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| US57304395A | 1995-12-15 | 1995-12-15 | |
| US08/573,043 | 1995-12-15 |
Publications (1)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| CA2212987A1 true CA2212987A1 (en) | 1997-06-19 |
Family
ID=24290429
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| CA002212987A Abandoned CA2212987A1 (en) | 1995-12-15 | 1996-12-13 | Method of stabilizing odors in manure |
Country Status (4)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| EP (1) | EP0809615A1 (en) |
| AU (1) | AU1466897A (en) |
| CA (1) | CA2212987A1 (en) |
| WO (1) | WO1997021647A1 (en) |
Families Citing this family (6)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DE10035432A1 (en) * | 2000-07-20 | 2002-01-31 | Kalksteinwerk Vilshofen Gmbh | Lime-clay suspension |
| US6752848B2 (en) * | 2001-08-08 | 2004-06-22 | N-Viro International Corporation | Method for disinfecting and stabilizing organic wastes with mineral by-products |
| US6752849B2 (en) * | 2001-08-08 | 2004-06-22 | N-Viro International Corporation | Method for disinfecting and stabilizing organic wastes with mineral by-products |
| WO2011134010A1 (en) * | 2010-04-28 | 2011-11-03 | The University Of Queensland | Control of bacterial activity, such as in sewers and wastewater treatment systems |
| PL432140A1 (en) | 2019-12-09 | 2021-06-14 | Habryń Andrzej Inventech | Method of treatment of animal manure |
| US11912633B1 (en) * | 2022-12-09 | 2024-02-27 | Holcim Technology Ltd | Fertilizer composition including animal manure and cement kiln dust |
Family Cites Families (5)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US3877920A (en) * | 1973-01-31 | 1975-04-15 | George Carlberg | Method of reclaiming wastes and products therefrom |
| US3884804A (en) * | 1973-06-29 | 1975-05-20 | Mead Corp | Method of deodorizing animal wastes |
| DE3513480C1 (en) * | 1985-04-16 | 1986-11-13 | Michael 2940 Wilhelmshaven Spitz | Process for the production of a fertilizer substance that is harmless to groundwater |
| US5275733A (en) * | 1990-11-30 | 1994-01-04 | N-Viro Energy Systems Ltd. | Process to stabilize wastewater sludge |
| US5468276A (en) * | 1994-05-23 | 1995-11-21 | Air Products And Chemicals, Inc. | Fertilizer chip and process for making same |
-
1996
- 1996-12-13 WO PCT/US1996/020453 patent/WO1997021647A1/en not_active Application Discontinuation
- 1996-12-13 CA CA002212987A patent/CA2212987A1/en not_active Abandoned
- 1996-12-13 AU AU14668/97A patent/AU1466897A/en not_active Abandoned
- 1996-12-13 EP EP96945253A patent/EP0809615A1/en not_active Withdrawn
Also Published As
| Publication number | Publication date |
|---|---|
| AU1466897A (en) | 1997-07-03 |
| EP0809615A1 (en) | 1997-12-03 |
| WO1997021647A1 (en) | 1997-06-19 |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| Zeng et al. | Improving composting as a post-treatment of anaerobic digestate | |
| CA2428417C (en) | Low oxygen organic waste bioconversion system | |
| Bolan et al. | Nutrient removal from farm effluents | |
| Avnimelech et al. | Rates of organic carbon and nitrogen degradation in intensive fish ponds | |
| Choi et al. | Effect of various litter amendments on ammonia volatilization and nitrogen content of poultry litter | |
| Chelme-Ayala et al. | Advanced treatment of liquid swine manure using physico-chemical treatment | |
| Willers et al. | Emission of ammonia and nitrous oxide from aerobic treatment of veal calf slurry | |
| US7438815B1 (en) | Inhibiting ammonia emissions and odors from animal wastes with oil | |
| Qiu et al. | Effects of conditioners on sulfonamides degradation during the aerobic composting of animal manures | |
| Tam et al. | Effects of the inoculum size of a commercial bacterial product and the age of sawdust bedding on pig waste decomposition in a pig-on-litter system | |
| CA2212987A1 (en) | Method of stabilizing odors in manure | |
| Samer et al. | Slurry treatment with food industry wastes for reducing methane, nitrous oxide and ammonia emissions | |
| KR19980079280A (en) | Oni reforming method | |
| Nakasaki et al. | Effect of bulking agent on the reduction of NH3emissions during thermophilic composting of night-soil sludge | |
| Skjelhaugen et al. | Combined aerobic and electrolytic treatment of cattle slurry | |
| US6656723B1 (en) | Odor controlling composition and methods of making and using | |
| Uwidia et al. | Effects of time on pH, total bacteria counts, and total hydrocarbon contents in the bioremediation of crude oil contaminated soil using indigenous bio-stimulants | |
| JP3638010B2 (en) | Method and apparatus for treating odorous gas generated from composting facilities | |
| EP1280561A1 (en) | Method and apparatus for treating digestible and odiferous waste | |
| Albin | Handling and disposal of cattle feedlot waste | |
| Samer et al. | Manure treatment with acidic liquid biowastes for reducing greenhouse gases and ammonia emissions | |
| KR20090030169A (en) | Method of treatment and separation excretion, and system thereof | |
| JPH0645515B2 (en) | How to treat shochu waste liquid | |
| Cattaneo | Livestock manure treatment for nutrients removal: consolidated techniques, emerging problems and new approaches | |
| JPH0847700A (en) | Waste recycling method and its device |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| EEER | Examination request | ||
| FZDE | Dead |