Literature DB >> 25737568

Environmental assessment of three egg production systems--Part II. Ammonia, greenhouse gas, and particulate matter emissions.

T A Shepherd1, Y Zhao1, H Li2, J P Stinn1, M D Hayes3, H Xin4.   

Abstract

As an integral part of the Coalition for Sustainable Egg Supply (CSES) Project, this study simultaneously monitored air emissions of 3 commercially operated egg production systems at the house level and associated manure storage over 2 single-cycle flocks (18 to 78 wk of age). The 3 housing systems were 1) a conventional cage house (CC) with a 200,000-hen capacity (6 hens in a cage at a stocking density of 516 cm2/hen), 2) an enriched colony house (EC) with a 50,000-hen capacity (60 hens per colony at a stocking density of 752 cm2/hen), and 3) an aviary house (AV) with a 50,000-hen capacity (at a stocking density of 1253 to 1257 cm2/hen). The 3 hen houses were located on the same farm and were populated with Lohmann white hens of the same age. Indoor environment and house-level gaseous (ammonia [NH3] and greenhouse gasses [GHG], including carbon dioxide [CO2], methane [CH4], and nitrous oxide [N2O]) and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5) emissions were monitored continually. Gaseous emissions from the respective manure storage of each housing system were also monitored. Emission rates (ERs) are expressed as emission quantities per hen, per animal unit (AU, 500 kg live BW), and per kilogram of egg output. House-level NH3 ER (g/hen/d) of EC (0.054) was significantly lower than that of CC (0.082) or AV (0.112) (P<0.05). The house-level CO2 ER (g/hen/d) was lower for CC (68.3) than for EC and AV (74.4 and 74.0, respectively), and the CH4 ER (g/hen/d) was similar for all 3 houses (0.07 to 0.08). The house-level PM ER (mg/hen/d), essentially representing the farm-level PM ER, was significantly higher for AV (PM10 100.3 and PM2.5 8.8) than for CC (PM10 15.7 and PM2.5 0.9) or EC (PM10 15.6 and PM2.5 1.7) (P<0.05). The farm-level (house plus manure storage) NH3 ER (g/hen/d) was significantly lower for EC (0.16) than for CC (0.29) or AV (0.30) (P<0.05). As expected, the magnitudes of GHG emissions were rather small for all 3 production systems. Data from this study enable comparative assessment of conventional vs. alternative hen housing systems regarding air emissions and enhance the U.S. national air emissions inventory for farm animal operations.
© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Poultry Science Association.

Entities:  

Keywords:  air emissions; alternative hen housing; egg production

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25737568      PMCID: PMC4990889          DOI: 10.3382/ps/peu075

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Poult Sci        ISSN: 0032-5791            Impact factor:   3.352


  5 in total

Review 1.  Environmental impacts and sustainability of egg production systems.

Authors:  H Xin; R S Gates; A R Green; F M Mitloehner; P A Moore; C M Wathes
Journal:  Poult Sci       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Concentrations and emission rates of aerial ammonia, nitrous oxide, methane, carbon dioxide, dust and endotoxin in UK broiler and layer houses.

Authors:  C M Wathes; M R Holden; R W Sneath; R P White; V R Phillips
Journal:  Br Poult Sci       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 2.095

3.  Environmental assessment of three egg production systems--Part I: Monitoring system and indoor air quality.

Authors:  Y Zhao; T A Shepherd; H Li; H Xin
Journal:  Poult Sci       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  Comparative evaluation of three egg production systems: Housing characteristics and management practices.

Authors:  Y Zhao; T A Shepherd; J C Swanson; J A Mench; D M Karcher; H Xin
Journal:  Poult Sci       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 3.352

5.  The Coalition for Sustainable Egg Supply project: An introduction.

Authors:  J C Swanson; J A Mench; D Karcher
Journal:  Poult Sci       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 3.352

  5 in total
  8 in total

1.  Ammonia production in poultry houses can affect health of humans, birds, and the environment-techniques for its reduction during poultry production.

Authors:  Sadia Naseem; Annie J King
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2018-04-28       Impact factor: 4.223

2.  Concentrations and emissions of particulate matter and ammonia from extensive livestock farm in South China.

Authors:  Chunhao Dai; Shaojian Huang; Yaoyu Zhou; Bin Xu; Hui Peng; Pufeng Qin; Genyi Wu
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2018-11-20       Impact factor: 4.223

3.  Environmental assessment of three egg production systems--Part I: Monitoring system and indoor air quality.

Authors:  Y Zhao; T A Shepherd; H Li; H Xin
Journal:  Poult Sci       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  Comparative evaluation of three egg production systems: Housing characteristics and management practices.

Authors:  Y Zhao; T A Shepherd; J C Swanson; J A Mench; D M Karcher; H Xin
Journal:  Poult Sci       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 3.352

5.  The Protective Efficacy of an Inactivated Vaccine against Avibacterium paragallinarum Field Isolates.

Authors:  Mengjiao Guo; Donghui Liu; Hengli Xu; Hao Zhang; Yikun Jin; Huihui Tan; Yantao Wu; Xiaorong Zhang
Journal:  Vet Sci       Date:  2022-08-26

6.  Influence of commercial laying hen housing systems on the incidence and identification of Salmonella and Campylobacter.

Authors:  D R Jones; J Guard; R K Gast; R J Buhr; P J Fedorka-Cray; Z Abdo; J R Plumblee; D V Bourassa; N A Cox; L L Rigsby; C I Robison; P Regmi; D M Karcher
Journal:  Poult Sci       Date:  2016-03-14       Impact factor: 3.352

7.  Sensitive and Selective NH₃ Monitoring at Room Temperature Using ZnO Ceramic Nanofibers Decorated with Poly(styrene sulfonate).

Authors:  Rafaela S Andre; Dongwook Kwak; Qiuchen Dong; Wei Zhong; Daniel S Correa; Luiz H C Mattoso; Yu Lei
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2018-04-01       Impact factor: 3.576

8.  Air temperature, carbon dioxide, and ammonia assessment inside a commercial cage layer barn with manure-drying tunnels.

Authors:  W Zheng; Y Xiong; R S Gates; Y Wang; K W Koelkebeck
Journal:  Poult Sci       Date:  2020-06-17       Impact factor: 3.352

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.