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

dc.contributor.author Shepherd, Timothy
dc.contributor.author Zhao, Yang
dc.contributor.author Xin, Hongwei
dc.contributor.author Li, Hong
dc.contributor.author Stinn, John
dc.contributor.author Hayes, Morgan
dc.contributor.author Xin, Hongwei
dc.contributor.department Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering
dc.date 2018-02-16T02:50:09.000
dc.date.accessioned 2020-06-29T22:41:21Z
dc.date.available 2020-06-29T22:41:21Z
dc.date.copyright Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 UTC 2015
dc.date.issued 2015-03-01
dc.description.abstract <p>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 cm<sup>2</sup>/hen), 2) an enriched colony house (EC) with a 50,000-hen capacity (60 hens per colony at a stocking density of 752 cm<sup>2</sup>/hen), and 3) an aviary house (AV) with a 50,000-hen capacity (at a stocking density of 1253 to 1257 cm<sup>2</sup>/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 [NH<sub>3</sub>] and greenhouse gasses [GHG], including carbon dioxide [CO<sub>2</sub>], methane [CH<sub>4</sub>], and nitrous oxide [N<sub>2</sub>O]) and particulate matter (PM<sub>10</sub>, PM<sub>2.5</sub>) 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 NH<sub>3</sub> ER (g/hen/d) of EC (0.054) was significantly lower than that of CC (0.082) or AV (0.112) (<em>P</em>< 0.05). The house-level CO<sub>2</sub> ER (g/hen/d) was lower for CC (68.3) than for EC and AV (74.4 and 74.0, respectively), and the CH<sub>4</sub> 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 (PM<sub>10</sub> 100.3 and PM<sub>2.5</sub> 8.8) than for CC (PM<sub>10</sub> 15.7 and PM<sub>2.5</sub> 0.9) or EC (PM<sub>10</sub> 15.6 and PM<sub>2.5</sub> 1.7) (<em>P</em> < 0.05). The farm-level (house plus manure storage) NH<sub>3</sub> ER (g/hen/d) was significantly lower for EC (0.16) than for CC (0.29) or AV (0.30) (<em>P</em> < 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.</p>
dc.description.comments <p>This article is from <em>Poultry Science</em> 94 (2015): 534–543, doi:<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps/peu075" target="_blank">10.3382/ps/peu075</a>. Posted with permission.</p>
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf
dc.identifier archive/lib.dr.iastate.edu/abe_eng_pubs/623/
dc.identifier.articleid 1907
dc.identifier.contextkey 6944961
dc.identifier.s3bucket isulib-bepress-aws-west
dc.identifier.submissionpath abe_eng_pubs/623
dc.identifier.uri https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/handle/20.500.12876/1410
dc.language.iso en
dc.source.bitstream archive/lib.dr.iastate.edu/abe_eng_pubs/623/2015_Shepherd_EnvironmentalAssessment.pdf|||Sat Jan 15 01:18:51 UTC 2022
dc.source.uri 10.3382/ps/peu075
dc.subject.disciplines Agriculture
dc.subject.disciplines Bioresource and Agricultural Engineering
dc.subject.disciplines Poultry or Avian Science
dc.subject.keywords Air emissions
dc.subject.keywords Egg production
dc.subject.keywords Alternative hen housing
dc.title Environmental assessment of three egg production systems—Part II. Ammonia, greenhouse gas, and particulate matter emissions
dc.type article
dc.type.genre article
dspace.entity.type Publication
relation.isAuthorOfPublication 36e0a8ce-fa2e-4df4-9f67-8d1717122650
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication 8eb24241-0d92-4baf-ae75-08f716d30801
File
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Name:
2015_Shepherd_EnvironmentalAssessment.pdf
Size:
1.55 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Collections