Anotec Pig Production and Odours

Livestock farming: A General Overview of Swine Production, Odours &
the Anotec ™ Solution
Introduction
Odours are among the most contentious of issues with regard to a piggery
operation. Pig farms generate odours that the surrounding community may
find offensive.
Odours from a piggery are a complex issue involving processes within the
piggery, in effluent collection areas, in storage ponds and manure spreading
areas.
The factors that contribute to the impact of an odour nuisance on a recipient

include the frequency (F) of occurrence of odour impact, the intensity (I) or
strength of the odour, the duration (D) of exposure and the offensiveness (O)
or character of the odour (Artis 1984, Bulley and Phillips 1980). These terms
are collectively described as the FIDO factors.
Shed design, effluent collection and disposal systems, and overall piggery
management will influence the rate at which an odour is generated. The
impact of generated odours will be influenced by the climate and topography.
Location, design and good management practices aim to prevent odour
problems with nearby residences.
© Victoria Zavras 2001

Let’s Start Off with the Site
A suitable site is probably the most important factor for a successful system.
The following points should be noted:
• Soil type sho uld be light and free draining to avoid damage by tractors
and poaching by stock in the winter. Sandy soils on top of chalk or
gravel are ideal. Very thin soils that blow or those with very sharp flints
should be avoided. Sites should be managed to avoid leaching of
organic material and soil erosion that can cause problems in
watercourses and on public roads.
• Annual rainfall should be below 750mm, though this depends on the
soil type.
• Fields should provide natural shelter from the wind if possible and have
flat areas for the siting of huts or arks.
• Fields should have good access for vehicles and be close to staff
housing for security.
• Sites for outdoor sows are normally included in an arable rotation with
pigs being moved every year or every other year, depending on soil
type, stocking density and the arable management. At least two years
should be left before pigs are returned to the same site.
• Sows can be moved onto stubble or bare soil, but established grass is
preferred.
Feeding
• Sows are fed in groups with the feed distributed directly onto the
ground.
• Sows are not individually fed, as this is not practical outside. Feed
should therefore be spread over as wide an area as possible to help
ensure each sow receives an adequate share and to minimise bullying.
Common practice is to distribute feed in a line allowing at least two
metres per sow.
• As individual rationing is not possible the average daily feed allowance
is often higher to ensure all sows achieve an adequate intake so
figures for feed used per so w are higher that those for an indoor herd.
Extra feed should be provided in the winter.
• A good quality cob or ro ll will not break easily under foot and will
reduce wastage.
• Food must always be put on a dry area.
Service Management
Most outdoor herds choose one of the following service options:
• Boars may be house in individual paddocks with single sows

introduced for service.

• Group serving. Groups of sows are introduced to a gro up of boars at
weaning with the numbers of sows equal to the number of boars. They
are introduced to the service paddock at intervals abo ut 3 - 4 days over
a 2-week period and then the boars are rested for 1 week. Boars
operating within this system need to be group reared. Overall boar to
sow ratio for the herd is approximately 1:12.
• "Dynamic" or rotating service group. Sows are grouped together at
weaning and fed ad lib. At oestrus they are moved into a large group
according to their body size and condition. They are served within the
group and stay there for about the first 10 weeks of pregnancy before
being remixed into weekly groups. Typically a dynamic service group
will contain 30 sows and 3 boars with 3 sows being added and
removed each week. Mixing at oestrus helps to reduce aggression as
the new sows are attracted to the boars.
• A "conventional" indoor system using supervised services with sows
returned to the field after service.
In all cases boars should be run with groups of sows around 3 weeks after
service to detect any returns.
Management
The management of sows kept outdoors requires different skills than for
indoor systems due to the extensive nature of the system and the need to
cope with extreme weather conditions.
• Skilled staff that are fit and willing to work in all conditions are
essential.
• Access to clean drinking water is essential.
• Adequate shade and wallows should be provided to avoid heat stress
or sunburn in hot weather.
• Huts should be adequately bedded with straw at all times to ensure a
warm dry lying area.
• Clear sow identification using large plastic ear tags, tattooing or
electronic ear buttons is essential to ensure easy management and as
a basis for recording performance.
• In traditional layouts, trailers most easily move sows. This can also be
used as a mobile handling pen.
• Nose rings are often applied to prevent sows rooting and damaging the
paddocks, but this practice raises serious welfare considerations. A
single ring thro ugh the septum is preferred to reduce replacement
requirements. Boars should not be rung.
• A preventative health programme for o utdoor sows should be drawn up
in conjunction with a veterinary surgeon.

Terminology
So that we all know what we are talking about we had better agree on the
terminology. The Agricultural Industry is endemic with different words
meaning the same thing. Apologies if these are a bit basic for some:
Breeding Herd Feeding Herd

Sow - breeding female
Boar - breeding male

Weaner - newly weaned pig
Gilt - yo ung female
Grower - pig not yet at sale weight
Piglet - young pig with mother
Porker - pig to be sold for po rk
Farrowing - giving birth
Baconer - pig to be sold for bacon
Service - sow and boar mating
Weaning - separation of sow and litter
Materials and Equipment
• Materials and equipment used in the construction of pig houses should

not be harmful to the pigs and should be easily cleaned and
disinfected.
Ventilation Systems
• All automatic ventilation systems should include an alarm that gives

warning of their failure and a back-up system that provides adequate
ventilation in the event of failure. This can be either manual (for
example, windows / doors) or automatic (for example, drop out panels).
• The alarm must be tested at least once per week and must be capable
of working if the electric supply is cut off. The back-up system should
be checked at least once per week and any faults with the alarm or
back-up system must be fixed as soon as possible.
Automatic Equipment
• All automatic equipment, for example, feed augers and ventilation

systems should be checked once per day.

• Any faults found with the equipment should be fixed as soon as
possible.
• If the fault cannot be fixed immediately temporary measures should be
taken to prevent any distress to the pigs.
Light
• Pigs should not be kept in permanent darkness. The light provided

could be either natural or artificial.
• If artificial light is provided this should be for a period equivalent to the
period of natural light. This is normally between 9.00am and 5.00pm.
Stock Inspection / Sick Pigs
• To check that pigs are in a state of well being they should be inspected
at least once per day. Any pigs suffering distress or pain should be
treated immediately.
• Any sick or injured pigs identified should, where necessary, be isolated
in dry bedded pens.
• To avoid unnecessary pain or distress, veterinary advice should be
sought as soon as possible for pigs that are not responding to the stock
keeper's care.
Feed and Water
• Pigs sho uld be fed a diet that is suitable for their weight and age.
• They should be fed at least once per day and fresh water should
always be available in adequate quantities.
Floors
• Floors of pig houses should be smooth but not slippery and designed
not to cause injury to the pigs.
Tail Biting
• All pigs, taking into acco unt the environment and stocking density,
should be able to obtain straw or other material to satisfy their
behavioural needs.
Boar Pens
• Boar pens should be at least six square metres if they are to be used
for living only. A larger pen is required if the pen is also to be used as a
service area.
• Boar pens should be positioned so that the boars can see, smell and
hear other pigs.
Teeth and Tails

• Tail docking and teeth clipping should only be carried out where there
is or has been evidence of injury to the sow and / or pigs.
• Teeth clipping should be carried out within seven days of birth.
The Not-So-Simple Problem of Swine Odours
For some, the problem seems simple: pigs stink. Why does it take a team of
specialists to figure that one out? And the simple answer is, it hasn’t.
We kno w, for instance, that a clean pig had about the same amount of body
odour as a clean human being. And we know, in general, why the swine-
odour problem was suddenly finding its way into headlines and public
debates. The main questions raised are:
What are the primary sources and causes of odours from sw ine
operations?
How can those odours be reduced or made less offensive?

The Complexities of Swine Odour
How people respond:

When we notice an odour from a swine operation, our noses have detected a
complex mixture of gases, vapours, and dust. Often, this odorous mixture
results as animal manure decomposes anaerobically--that is, when bacteria
that do not use oxygen slo wly degrade them. The familiar smell of ammonia
and the "rotten egg" odour of hydrogen sulphide gas can both result from
anaerobic decomposition.
However, the same anaerobic process also releases volatile fatty acids,
whose odours people often find more offensive than either ammonia or
hydrogen sulphide. In fact, some 150 volatile compounds have been found in
swine waste. These compounds result from natural, biological reactio ns and
include organic acids, alcohols, aldehydes, fixed gases, carbonyls, esters,
amines, sulphides, mercaptans, and nitrogen heterocyclics.
Many of these compounds are carried by airborne dust and other particles,
some of which, in the confines of a swine house, may also contain pathogens
or physical irritants. Odorous mixtures vary with location, the size and type of
swine operation, production practices, season, temperature, humidity, time of
day, and wind speed and direction. With so many compounds and
environmental variables, it is often difficult to determine which compound--or
combination of compounds--is giving offence.
To complicate matters further, our sensitivities and reactions to odours are,

like fingerprints--individual and specific. They are influenced by personal
preferences, opinions, experiences, and the varying sensitivities of our
olfactory systems. In this way, odour is something like sound: What some
people hear as music, other people hear as noise.
Whether people think of the odour as music or noise, many of those who live
or work near a swine operation would like to turn the volume down. Odours
can irritate, anger, or upset us, especially if we associate them with something
threatening, unpleasant, or beyond our control.
Sources of Odours
In general, the best odour-control system is a well-managed farm. However,

many parts of the swine farm produce odours if they are not well managed
and clean.
Typically, odours from swine operations originate from one or more of the
following sources:

Buildings and holding facilities. If manure accumulates in swine houses or
holding facilities, anaerobic decomposition begins and odours intensify. In
open lots, uncontained odours from accumulated manure become intense
during warm, wet weather. Buildings may also release odours, however, if
manure builds up inside. As animals become dirty with urine, manure, and
feed dust, their body heat radiates odour. Slatted floors can help separate the
animals from manure and urine, but under-floor areas also generate odours
unless they are frequently cleaned. There is evidence that collecting and
storing manure in water, as in pit-recharge systems, reduces levels of
ammonia and hydrogen sulphide gas in livestock buildings. Even so, these
systems can release odours as the contents of uncovered pits and tanks are
disturbed during pumping and flushing. Every part of a facility's waste-
handling system produces odours if it is not kept clean.
Many of the volatile fatty acids and other compo unds associated with odour
attach themselves to dust. When dust from feed, dander, and other sources is
allowed to coat animals, walls, and ventilation systems, virtually every surface
releases odours. In a poorly ventilated building, these odours build up, and
they may escape in a concentrated dose.
Manure storage and treatment. In some countries, most animal wastes are
flushed, washed, pumped, scraped, or otherwise removed from swine
buildings, usually with water, and stored in lagoons. If lagoons are mature,
large enough, and well managed, offensive odours will be reduced. During the
start-up phase, which may last a year or more, some offensive odours will be
generated until materials and biological processes stabilise. Even in mature
lagoons, odours are released if raw wastes are added too rapidly or if a spring
warming creates a thermal inversion, lifting material from the deepest strata
toward the surface. Lagoon liquid used to flush pits or irrigate land releases a
relatively mild odour if it is drawn from the uppermost, aerobic layer of the
lagoon. But if pumping disturbs the deeper, anaerobic layers of a lagoon,
offensive odours will result.
Manure can also be stored as a liquid in concrete or metal tanks, open or

covered, and in earthen storage and treatment basins. Without careful design
and management, each of these systems generates odours.
Land application. Typically, lagoon liquids are removed from lagoons during
warm weather when they can be used to fertilize pastures, forests, or crops.
But these are the same seasons when heat and humidity can promote the
production of odour. If liquids drawn from lagoons have received adequate
treatment, odour is not usually a problem during and after irrigation.
Generally, because sludges remain in the lagoon for long-term storage and
treatment, they are applied to land very infrequently. But when anaerobic
sludges are spread across a field, odorous compounds may volatilise rapidly.
Until the materials are dry and stable, volatiles rise and move off-site in the
wind. Odours usually subside in one to three days, unless humidity is high or
the layer of sludge is too thick. If the material is applied in a thin, even layer
during dry, breezy weather and early in the day (between 8 a.m. and 2 p.m.),

much of it will dry before the humidity increases during the late afternoon and
evening. On some sites, land application can be managed so that the fields
are downwind fro m nearby neighbours. Sludges and liquids may also be
injected or incorporated into the soil--an effective but costly alternative to
conventional methods.
Carcass disposal. For example, a 1,000-sow farrow-to-finish operation may

produce over 40,000 pounds of dead pigs annually. In some parts of the
United States and Australia, most carcasses are disposed of by landfill, on-
farm burial, rendering, or incineration. Decaying carcasses can release
offensive odours if they are stored too long for disposal or pickup, or when
they are transported. Each of the available options for disposal is problematic.
Fees and restrictions on the use of landfills for animal disposal have
increased so rapidly that this option is becoming infeasible. Incineration is
costly in the equipment, fuel, and maintenance necessary to prevent odour
and air pollution. On-site collectio n and burial presents the risk of disease and
may threaten water quality, especially in nutrient-sensitive watersheds and in
permeable soils near water supplies. In addition, disposal practices other than
rendering do not allow for any recovery or reuse of the carcass as a nutrient
resource. The swine industry may need new options for disposal.
Measures and Thresholds
If we assume that eliminating all odours from swine operations is neither

practical nor necessary, we are left with a difficult question: How much odour
is too much?
Recent research indicates that odours outside swine farms are intermittent
and often may result from barely detectable levels of compounds--often in the
parts-per-billion range. Even so, the human nose is very sensitive, and an
odorous compound does not have to be very strong to raise an objection.
The extreme variability of sources, causes, environmental facto rs, and human
response makes it difficult to measure swine odours or determine some
objective limit for odour emissions. The problem is compounded by the fact
that an odour's offensiveness does not always correspond to its intensity.
For instance, odours produced by agitating anaerobic slurries have been
judged very offensive, even at low intensities, while odours ventilated from
swine houses have been judged less offensive, even at much higher
concentrations.
Despite these complications, measures and thresholds are possible and

necessary, especially for odour monitoring and correction. In the effort to
improve facilities and management practices, measures enable experts to
establish goals and bases of comparison and give the formulators of Anotec
™ Odour Control Products (OCPs) an indication of what treatment would be
most effective. By using gas chromatography and other sophisticated
analytical techniques, it is possible to identify many of the various chemical
constituents in an odour sample. Although we get information regarding each
individual component and its concentration, the GC analysis does not reveal
which of the components or mixtures of compo nents are responsible for the

odours perceived. Anotec ™ takes the view that an overall significant
reduction in the entire concentration levels will result in a lower perceptible
odour unit. Olfactometry conducted by using an olfactometer and a human
panel gives us a good indication whether the odour control chemical Anotec
™ formulated is suitable. While no standard method has yet been developed
for measuring and evaluating swine odours, several techniques have been
used to evaluate odours from various kinds of livestock facilities. Because the
human nose is the best available odour-detector, most of these techniques
involve the human panels discussed previously. Panels evaluating the
intensity of an odour typically assign numbers to odours in relationship to their
magnitude. Panels ranking odours for their offensiveness usually do so using
a numerical scale.
Several devices have been used to contain an odour and present it to a panel.
The simplest of these uses a cotton swatch. More elaborate tests use
instruments such s the scentometer and the olfactometer, both of which
dilute pungent air with odour-free air and the odour panel evaluates the
different dilutions. A concentration of odorants that can be detected by
observers is called the "detection threshold."
Each of the methods for assessing odours is expensive and time consuming.
Commercially available olfactometers can cost between $AUD15, 000 and
$AUD140, 000. An odour panel using these instruments should include up to
eight people, each of whom must be selected, trained, and compensated.
Such panels may be best suited for helping set the thresholds of certain
odorous compounds, or for calibrating the instruments used in odour
measurement. But panels may be too costly for use in routine testing and
monitoring.
While no single method or technology is likely to account for all of the

variables affecting our response to an odour, objective measures are
nevertheless useful. With them, the swine industry would be able to respond
to clear standards, design better facilities, and improve management
practices. Anotec ™ also believes that chemical analysis is mandatory when
determining the best available formulation for the treatment of all odorous
emissions.
A Role for New Technologies
Stringent regulations in several European countries have, in some cases, led

to waste-management and odour-control systems mo re advanced and
elaborate than those in the United States and Australia. However, in Europe,
producers generally recoup the cost of those systems in the higher prices paid
for pork. In some parts of the world, then, society has been willing to pay more
for its food in order to ensure cleaner water and air.
For industry, consumers, and government there is a mutual interest in the

development of cost-effective new technologies for reducing odour. And the
benefits of these technologies are likely to extend beyond odour reduction

alone. Since most agricultural odour problems are also waste-management
problems, their solutions are likely to affect odour and water quality, energy
conservation, and nutrient management as well.
The Search for Solutions

Measurement of Odours
Because of the costs and variables involved in using human panels to
measure odour, a number of devices have been tested for their ability to
measure odours electronically. Here, in Australia, for instance, scientists are
developing an electronic device that senses para-cresol, which is sometimes
regarded as an "indicator chemical" in swine odour. In general, however,
research in Western Europe supports the general agreement among U.S.
scientists that there are no reliable chemical indicators for odours caused by
complex biological materials such as manure. In addition, odorous
compounds are interactive, not additive, in their effect. That is, the
combination of several odorous compounds may create a unique odour and
not several odours perceived independently.
Even so, the difficulty of measuring odours has not prevented the use of
thresholds and standards in Europe, and the European Economic Community
is moving to ward a common standardised procedure for the measurement of
odour. In Germany, thresholds based on the use of olfactometers have
withstood legal challenges. And in the Netherlands, ten certified laboratories
apply a standardized procedure for measuring odour - at co nsiderable cost.
The Netherlands has also adopted a new "Green Label" code for
environmentally friendly housing for animals. To qualify, the facility must not
exceed the threshold for ammonia emissions. Anotec ™ has since adopted
the Dutch Standard for Olfactometry – Forced Choice Method.
While ammonia is neither the only source of odour nor the most offensive,
studies in Europe consistently find that measures to reduce ammonia
generally do reduce odo urs from other compounds as well. In land application
of manure, for example, when Anotec ™ 0307 reduced ammonia emissions
by 75% it was found to reduce the overall odour by >98%. The biological
sources of ammonia--the digestive by-products of microbes--also yield other
odorous compounds. Drying or acidifying animal wastes stops microbial
action, preventing the production of odorous compounds. However, when
microbial action ceases, so does the reduction and transformation of nitrogen,
and thus more nitrogen remains in the wastes.
Sources of Odour: Where is it coming from?

Recent studies have shown that no two pig farms are the same. Ho wever, it
was somewhat surprising to be able to pin point the odour source, or rather
the main contributors to the overall odour problem.
When investigators compared odours from different pig farms, several trends
emerged. Locations at the ventilating fans used with under-floor and tunnel
systems yielded the highest levels of odour. Even so, levels measured around
the buildings using these systems were generally lower than levels taken

around roof-ventilated buildings. Lagoons produced levels of odour roughly
comparable to those around the houses.
Generally, odours were lower around buildings using under-floor or tunnel

ventilation than around buildings with roof ventilation.
Anotec ™ usually collects air samples for GC analysis and at times samples
for Olfactometry. The latter samples are presented to an odour panel, which
rate odours by their intensity and characterise each sample using descriptive
terms. It was determined that at each of the sampling sites, odours were
intermittent. Levels of odours tended to be highest during early morning and
evening when air turbulence was reduced and air movement approached
laminar (smooth) flow. In most samples, odours at 20 metres downwind from
the site were very faint (three to nine times above threshold). On one
occasion, however, a constant and invariable wind carried odour directly from
a site's ventilation fans to the sampling site 20 metres away. Without eddying
currents to dilute and disperse the odour, levels rose to 27 times higher than
threshold.
It was heartening to see that treatment with the Anotec ™ 0307 formulation;
the levels of odorous compo unds detected were extremely low. The analysts
had difficulty acquiring samples with enough molecular mass to be analysed
chemically (using a gas chromatograph and mass spectrometer). No
hydrogen sulphide was detected above 0.5 ppm, the limit of the detection
method. At the minute levels sampled, the odorous compounds were unlikely
to be toxic to humans.
Dietary Amendments: What a great idea!

When it comes to odour, not all swine manures are created equal. The odour-
causing potential of fresh manure varies among pigs and their diets. Because
nitrogen is a key ingredient of ammonia and many other odorous compounds,
it is generally true that the higher the nitrogen content of swine manure the
greater its potential odour.
In general, pigs excrete excess nitrogen when they ingest more protein than
they can efficiently use. In some diets, amino acids are not in balance with the
animal's requirements. In others, the source of protein used in the feed is
poorly digested. Improving the conversion of feed can not only reduce odour
but also lower feed bills, which represent about 60 percent of a swine
operation's production costs!
Odour-Control Additives
Many products are available for allegedly treating or preventing odours in

animal facilities, manure storage tanks, and lagoons. Some of these products
work and some do not. They are generally found in one of the following
categories:

Masking agents are mixtures of perfumes and solvents used to cover up an
objectionable odour with a more desirable one.
Counteractants are aromatic oils that cancel or neutralize an odour so that

the intensity of the mixture is less than that of it constituents.
Digestive deodorants contain bacteria or enzymes that eliminate odours

through biochemical digestive processes. For example, sarsaponin can be
added directly to lagoons, promoting microbial action.
Adsorbents are products with a large surface area that may be used to
adsorb the odours before they are released to the environment. Sphagnum
peat moss, for example, has been found to reduce odour in some lagoons.
Chemical deodorants are strong oxidizing agents or germicides. Germicides

such as ortho dichlorobenzene chlorine, formaldehyde, and paraformaldehyde
alter or eliminate bacterial action responsible for odour production. Oxidizing
agents such as hydrogen peroxide, potassium permanganate, and ozone
chemically oxidize odour-causing compounds.
Each of these groups has its strengths and limitations. Masking agents and
Counteractants, for instance, can be effective in the short-term storage of
wastes. However, because these products typically are organic compounds
that can be broken down by bacteria, most of them quickly lose their
effectiveness in lagoons and tanks.
Recently, aggressive marketing has increased the use of digestive
deodorants. These products, which contain enzymes or bacteria or both, are
advertised for their abilities to break down solids, reduce the release of
ammonia, and conserve nitrogen. No one product affects all of the odour-
causing compounds possible in swine manure, however. Unless the
environments of lagoons and other waste-treatment systems are favourable,
supplemental bacteria may die off or fail to reach sufficient numbers to control
odour. Of the many products tested in the Netherlands and in Germany for
their ability to reduce odours from manure slurries, none has proven reliably
effective.
Anotec ™ Odour Control Products (OCPs) are formulations based on the

chemical analysis of odorous emissio ns and were developed by combining a
few of the techniques that have been used over the years. A combination of
odour counteraction, adsorption and air scrubbing via a misting system has
proven to be the most effective treatment to date. Following is a very basic
diagram and description outlining the action of an Anotec ™ molecule and an
odour.

ANOTEC ™ ODOUR CONTROL
Mode of Action
Unlike masking agents, Anotec ™ Odour Control physically reacts with the
malodour by destroying its intermolecular structure leaving behind the Anotec
™ array, which naturally biodegrades. It has been proven using quality
precision instruments that have shown once the Anotec ™ odour control
product has been applied, the concentration of the components in the
malodour were significantly reduced and / or eliminated. The original
malodour cannot reconstitute itself, becoming non-volatile
Ideally, Anotec ™ Odour Control should be used where NEW odours are
constantly being released or introduced.
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv)
(v)
Malodour Anotec ™
Molecule (iii) & (iv)Anotec ™ Molecule
disassociates the malodour molecule
rendering it non-volatile. (v)The
Anotec ™ molecule then biodegrades
naturally.
Anotec ™ Odour Control works as an odour eliminator by combating each

individual component within an odorous mix.
This is the main reason why Anotec ™ Odour Control has been proven to be
superior to any other odour control measures, which favour treating the
malodour as a who le or concentrate on one particular constituent - such as
ONLY hydrogen sulphide in a sewage gas emission.
To date, all testing and removal efficiencies as calculated by the

Environmental Science Program, ANSTO, has revealed that Anotec ™ Odour
Control is successful in greatly reducing or eliminating malodours in areas
such as sewage treatment facilities, rendering plants, ferro us and non-ferrous
foundries, cooking facilities (exhausts), bitumen manufacturing, rubber plants,
jewellery plating facilities, spray booths etc.

To maximise the use of Anotec ™ Odour Control, we recommend that
a thorough odour audit or investigation be carried out on-site to
determine the economic and effective viability of such a treatment.
Whilst Anotec ™ OCPs have been proven to be successful in the significant

reduction and/or elimination, Anotec ™ maintain that it is advisable that its
products are incorporated into an odour management program that includes
issues such as housekeeping procedures and even other techno logies such
as altering the diet of the livestock.
Don’t forget about: Ventilation

Research and experience confirm that each of the major carriers of odour
(gases, dusts, and vapours) can be controlled, but only with the right
ventilation.
During winter, when buildings are closed and sometimes heated, producers
sometimes hesitate to run the ventilation fans, knowing that heat will escape
as the air is exhausted. It is especially in winter that ventilation should be
constant. For example, a sow and litter produce about o ne pound of water per
hour, or about three gallons a day, in the form of water vapour. Good
ventilation helps to prevent condensation, dampness, mould, and the
corresponding risks of disease or damage to buildings. It also prevents the
build-up of noxious gases formed by the decomposition of stored manure and,
in general, improves the environment for workers and pigs.
A building's design and ventilation system greatly affect the movement of
particles. For example, a building using sidewall ventilation can move large
volumes of air, diluting the concentration of particles inside the building as
well as in the air exhausted from the building. Ventilation systems that move
particles into underfloor pits tend to trap them in the liquids, where they are
removed to the lagoon for treatment. In the European countries, climate and
environmental regulations dictate a building design and ventilation system
somewhat different from those in the United States or Australia. To reduce
energy demands, one European system draws air through ducts buried
underground. In this system, the ambient temperature of the earth warms the
air in the winter and cools it in the summer. (A similar system tested in the
foundry industry worked quite well!).
An Underslat Ventilation System

An underslat ventilation system allows air to enter the building through slots
and baffles that are continuous with the eaves, mixes with warm air before
reaching the pigs, moves through the slatted floor into flush channels or
manure pits, and is drawn through uniformly spaced openings into the
plenum, from which it is exhausted. (Source: "Ventilation of Swine Buildings
Using the North Carolina Underslat Ventilation System," L. Bynum Driggers.
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, AG-132.)
Properly managed, current technologies for ventilation help reduce odour and
provide a more healthful environment for workers and pigs.

There are also other designs that can improve the quality of the air in pig
housing. One of these is the Netherlands Hepaq Environmental Pig House ™,
created by Hendrix Feeds and the Plaques engineering firm.
In this design, slurry is flushed out of the manure pit several times a day to
limit odours and reduce the need for ventilation. In the slurry tank, viscous
manure settles to the bottom. From there, it is transferred into storage for
processing at treatment plants or application to land. Liquids from the slurry
tank are treated by aeration then recycled for use in flushing. Excess liquid is
evaporated using ventilation fans and outside air.
The companies estimate reductions of 40 to 50 percent in the volume of
manure, and 60 to 70 percent in the emission of ammonia, as compared to
conventional Dutch systems.
Note: separating liquids from solids generally lowers ammonia emissions and
reduces treatment costs.
Separating liquids fro m manure not only simplifies treatment but also enables
the development of useful products. In one European system, for instance, a
two-stage separator provides a solid (consisting of 65 percent dry matter),
which is composted for use as a potting medium in nurseries. The liquid
fraction is used as a fertilizer in hydroponic greenhouses. In Germany, solids
are often composted and marketed as fertilizers and soil amendments. This
practice has produced so much compost that the supply is exceeding
demand.
However, in Europe, not all swine wastes are treated on the farm. At some
locations, wastes are trucked at producers' expense to remote farms for direct
land application. At others, agricultural wastes are trucked to central plants for
treatment along with municipal or industrial sludges. Because these plants are
under pressure to prevent odour and reduce the volume of wastes applied to
land, several technologies have emerged over the last two decades.
In Denmark, for instance, one firm is using mechanical vapour compression to
evaporate and purify water from industrial and agricultural wastewater. The
system, which can separate swine wastes into dischargeable water and
concentrated, nutrient-rich slurry, is being tested for on-farm use. The
company involved estimates that three forty-foot modular plants plugged into
the slurry pipe of a swine facility could process 20 to 30 tons of waste per day.
Of course, each of the technologies discussed in this part of the document
has some limitations, and some may not prove to be practical for sites locally.
Also, while these technologies offer some advantages for odour co ntrol, they
do not in themselves reduce the net amount of nutrients that must be
managed in the system.
Aerobic Treatment, in Brief

Aerobic treatment uses air. Anaerobic treatment does not. Most lagoons,
manure pits, and other facilities for handling swine wastes are anaerobic,
because their submerged materials are not exposed to air.
Like many other natural materials, bacteria that use oxygen can oxidise swine
manure. These bacteria efficiently transform the manure into a chemically
stable material, reducing both pathogens and odour. Some of these aerobic

bacteria "digest" or oxidize carbohydrates to carbon dioxide and water. Others
feed on organic substances and convert nitrogen compounds to ammonium.
Still others oxidise ammonium salts to nitrites then nitrates in a process called
"nitrification."
For the purposes of odour control, the main advantage of aerobic treatment
of wastes is that it does not produce the vo latile fatty acids and various other
compounds associated with very offensive odours. The main disadvantage of
aerobic treatment is that it generally requires power to aerate the materials.
A number of researchers have presented evidence that treating swine waste
aerobically can lessen its odour. Aeration promotes the gro wth of bacteria that
can rapidly degrade phenol, p-cresol, volatile fatty acids, and other
compounds. If the solids are first removed, slurries treated aerobically
become more stable and produce fewer odours when they are subsequently
stored and applied to land.
Odour-Control Technologies
A number of technologies for reducing odour have been developed for
industries using or producing odorous compounds. These include
scrubbers,
incinerators,
adsorbing units using activated carbon,
condensers,
catalytic converters, and
biological filters.
Generally, all of these systems incur significant costs in construction,

operation, and maintenance, and so they have not been considered practical
in swine production. As incentives for controlling odour increase, however,
some of these technologies are being tested for use in agriculture.
Currently, the least costly technology for removing odours from large volumes
of air is the Anotec ™ Odour Control System. The system is identified as the
Cirrus Range of engineered systems and is custom built to suit any areas,
large or small, indoors or outdoors. The Cirrus system, a scientifically
developed misting system, coupled with Anotec’s ™ OCPs, treats the odorous
emissions that “scrubs” the malodour. This is turn means that there is a break
down of the volatile compounds into their elemental state rendering them non-
volatile and thus non-perceptible to the observers and their neighbours.
Anotec ™ OCPs can remove 90 percent or more of volatile organic
compounds, creates no secondary pollution, and is efficient in treating low
concentrations of odorants (less than 20 ppm).
The Anotec ™ range of Odour Contro l Systems is capable of treating large

volumes of emissions (such as fugitives) with great success.
One rendering operation in So uthern New South Wales, Australia is using five
such systems to reduce odour. These systems are treating the air tunnels in
the centre of enormous concrete bunkers. Openings in the sides of the
tunnels allow air to be forced through and treated at the exit point. These

systems are not very expensive to construct, and are capable of removing 95
percent of the odours released from the plant.
In the past Anotec ™ have tested various Anotec ™ systems for odour control
in swine operations, but most of these systems were expensive and were
susceptible to dust and clogging. However, the new system has been proven
beyond a doubt that it is the most economical and advanced state of the art
technology on the market today. In early tests, the system's operation has
demonstrated an ability to scrub odour from large volumes of emissions, this
in turn has led to the development of various Cirrus systems that
accommodate small, medium and large emissions either outdoors or indoors.
A similar system was tested in Malaysia using a two-nozzle system for a

600mm wide stack where Anotec ™ and researchers evaluated a pilot-scale
system for use in treating the air exhausted from swine buildings. In the study,
odorous air passed through a stack whereby the two nozzles treated it right at
the exit point. Using gas chromatography and an odour-monitoring device,
researchers evaluated the Anotec ™ System’s ability to reduce the levels of
odorous compounds and found that there was an overall 95% reduction of the
emissions.
By its nature, odour is an elusive and complex phenomenon, and any steps
we take toward odour reduction will no doubt be complicated by a number of
variables. In so me cases, predictive models, both mathematical and physical,
may help us account for this complexity and simulate the performance of
various technologies before they reach the field. To this end Anotec ™ has
been proven to be a wise choice, not merely for its significant effectiveness
treating odorous emissions but because it complies with the BATNEEC (Best
Available Technology Not Entailing Excessive Costs) policy the company has
adopted.
Informational:
Odours are primarily a subjective response; there are few universally good or
bad odours. People react to odours according to their attitudes and previous
experience. This factor is usable by livestock operators as they maintain an
image of responsibility and productivity. Operators of well-maintained and
attractive facilities who have maintained a cooperative public attitude are
seldom subjected to odour complaints. Odour frequently becomes an issue
along with complaints of water pollution, flies, noise, and other issues when
there is faulty site selection, improper facility design, or inadequate
management.
Compounds emanating from livestock buildings have never exceeded safe air
standards and are not hazardous to humans. Under certain situations, such
as manure pit agitation, however, dangero us gas concentrations can develop.
Odours, therefore, are nuisance pollutants and, like other nonhazardous
assaults on the environment, must be regarded accordingly. Important are
intensity, duration, and frequency of detection. Within an agricultural
community, it seems appropriate that livestock odours be occasionally

noticed, but nuisance complaints result when intensity or frequency exceeds
reasonable limits.
Principles of Odour Control.
Although odours seem mysterious and difficult to manage, the principles of

odour formation and control are relatively few and straightforward. For an
odour to be detected downwind, odorous compounds must be (a) formed, (b)
released to the atmosphere, and (c) transported to the receptor site. These
three steps provide the basis for most odour control. If any one of the steps is
inhibited, the odour will diminish.
Since odorous compound formation is generally the product of biological

decomposition, steps to stop odour formation generally inhibit biological
activity. Moisture reductio n is the most common technique. By maintaining a
manure-covered surface in a dry condition (less than 40% moisture),
anaerobic biological decomposition is generally halted; odours are most
prevalent immediately following rainfall and when manure surfaces are
allowed to remain moist over an extended period. Other inhibitors of biological
activity of animal manure include chlorination, pH adjustment, and in nature,
temperature control.
Although odorous compounds may have formed in manure or manure storage

systems, few complaints will be registered unless these compounds are
allowed to escape into the atmosphere. The most common means of inhibiting
the escape of odorous compounds is covered manure storage tanks.
Covering inhibits the interchange of odorous compounds between the liquid
surface and over lying atmosphere. Altering the chemical state of the
compound of greatest concern may also reduce this interchange. For
example, in regions where hydrogen sulphide is a major problem, the addition
of lime or other alkaline material will reduce hydrogen sulphide volatility. This
procedure should be tried on a small scale; however, to make certain the
chemical adjustment will improve rather than worsen the odour problem.
Another means of preventing odour is inhibiting transport of manure odour

from the production and release site to the area where odour control is
necessary. Odour transport has been inhibited in certain locations by the
installation of Anotec ™ sprays that scrub the odorous materials from the air,
and of barriers that cause more complete mixing of the odorous materials with
Anotec ™ OCPs and odour-free air to achieve odour reduction and sufficient
dilution. This approach has received only limited application with livestock
production odours but is widely used in industry.
Odour Control Techniques.

Perhaps the most critical and effective means of reducing odour complaints

occurs in the initial site selection. Although it is difficult to set definitive
perimeters beyond which odour will not be a problem, a pork producer must
seriously consider odour control as he selects a site. Sites near residential
developments, commercial enterprises, and recreational areas are particularly
prone to problems. A site may be ideally suited for livestock production in
terms of transportation, feed supply, and zoning regulations, but may be
inappropriate because of existing or proposed development in the area.
There is a general relationship between the perception of odour nuisance,

separation distance, and size of a swine production facility. For facilities of
1,000 or fewer animals the incidence of odour complaints is noticeably
reduced beyond one-quarter mile. For larger units, separation distances of
approximately a half-mile are necessary for adequate protection.
Terrain is another factor to consider in site selection. Facilities in a confined

valley are particularly prone to have odours drift down the slope with relatively
little dilution. Such sites should be avoided if residences or other odour
sensitive sites are down slope.
Although wind direction is important in evaluating an odour control site, most

locations have winds from several directions during the year. The simple
location downwind of development is not sufficient. By referring to published
data, one can estimate the percentage of time the wind will blow from the
odour so urce to the point in question and thereby make a more rational
decision concerning site suitability. Where distance alone is used as the
criterion, it must be expected that odours can be transported in excess of a
mile downwind under appropriate climatic conditions. If these conditions are
sufficiently rare and the damage is slight, this might not be an inhibiting factor
toward development.
The seco nd opportunity for reducing odour problems occurs during the design
and construction of a facility. By application of odour control principles, the
probability of odour can be minimised. Designing outdoor lots that are well
drained, watering systems that do not flow onto the lot surface, and runoff
control facilities that are remotely located from areas of odour sensitivity will
achieve some odour reduction. In modern, roofed housing units the methods
of manure removal from the pens, manure transport, and handling are most
important for odour control. Also, animals must be kept clean and dry. Among
approaches for accomplishing this are slotted floors, flushing gutters, and
frequent pen scraping. Covered storage tanks control odour release from
stored manure. Where treatment is required and odour control is important,
aerobic systems such as oxidation ditches and floating surface aerators,
altho ugh more expensive, are effective to curtail odour emissions.
The operation and management of a livestock production facility also offer

considerable opportunity for odour control. Maintaining the operating systems
is probably most important. Overflowing manure storage tanks, broken
scrapers, leaking waterers, and ruptured retention ponds and dikes are
among the most common causes of odour complaints.

Anaerobic swine manure treatment lagoons are of special concern in odour
control. Properly designed and managed lagoons are not free of odours but
seldom cause an odour problem. However, overloaded or shock-loaded
lagoons are more likely to have objectionable odours. Where multiple-celled
lagoons are used, it is important that the cell or cells receiving fresh manure
not be loaded in excess of the recommendations for your particular area.
Anaerobic lagoon odours are most common in the spring and early summer
when the water temperature warms and manure accumulated during the
winter undergoes rapid decomposition. Another alternative is to add surface
aeration sufficient to maintain the lagoon surface in an aerobic condition.
Where practical, locate lagoons as far as possible from neighbouring

residences, roads, and other odour-sensitive areas. Separation distances are
particularly important when anaerobic lagoons are used. One helpful
approach is to double the normal separation distances. This may make the
selection of anaerobic lagoons inappropriate for larger (more than 1,000
head) facilities in other than the most remote sites. Shielding lagoons from
view is also helpful.
Disposal techniques and timing are also important for odour control. When
manure is applied to cropland, a field downwind of neighbouring residences
on that day is important. Morning application is more desirable than late
afternoons, which limits drying time. Neighbours are generally most sensitive
to odour problems in early evening when utilizing outdoor recreational
facilities. When manure disposal is necessary and odour control is critical,
immediate incorporation of the manure can effectively minimize odour
complaints. Where soil is suitable and neighbours are particularly close, direct
soil injection is a valuable technique.
Going the full distance

The above approaches generally provide great assistance to the livestock
producer in coping with complaints of neighbours. When these techniques are
not suitable, further steps must be taken. Although some are experimental
and have no t received widespread acceptance, they are worthy of
consideration. There are alternate waste treatment schemes that can be
employed to reduce odour emission. These are generally more expensive but
may be justified for larger enterprises or where site conditions or separation
distances are such that conventional treatment systems release unacceptable
levels of odour. These systems generally require more sophisticated design.
Aerobic manure treatment systems are helpful. Most co mmon among these
are oxidation ditches, aerated storage tanks, and aerated lagoons. By
maintaining manure in an aerobic condition, odorous gas production is
markedly reduced. For each of these systems it is important that adequate
aeration capacity be provided and that management is sufficient to keep the
equipment in top operating condition. Manure solids separation may be
practiced ahead of each of these systems to minimize aeration demands.
Anaerobic digesters similar to those used in municipal wastewater treatment

plants may be used for swine waste treatment. Anaerobic digesters represent

a significant initial investment and an ongoing operational demand; however,
they provide nearly complete control of the odorous gasses being released.
Some cost recovery can be effected where it is feasible to use the biogas
being produced to an economic advantage. Digesters do not provide
complete waste treatment, thus are most commonly coupled with some
means of effluent storage, either with or without aeration.
Flexible covers have been applied to anaerobic lagoons in situations where

odour control is essential. These covers prevent uncontrolled escape of
odorous gasses. The collected gasses may be burned or subjected to
subsurface soil absorption. Lagoon covers require careful design to avoid
premature weather damage and allow convenient gas removal.
Odour generation
The odour generated from piggeries is generally a result of the decomposition

of manure. Odour from freshly excreted manure is generally less offensive
than odour released from anaerobically decomposing manure.
Decomposition of piggery wastes may occur either anaerobically or
aerobically. The compounds produced will depend on the oxygen status of the
waste and thus the process involved in the decomposition.
Aerobic decomposition occurs under conditions where oxygen is available in
the system. Under aerobic conditions, the main decomposition by-products
will be carbohydrates, water and other compounds (eg. water soluble,
inorganic nitrogen and sulphur based compounds) that tend to produce little
odour (Elliot et al. 1978).
Anaerobic decomposition occurs where there is no oxygen available to the
system. Anaerobic decomposition is a slower and less complete process than
aerobic decompositio n. Because anaerobic digestion is less complete, the by-
products yielded are more complex and subsequently tend to be more
odorous (Elliot et al. 1978). Some of the by-products of anaerobic digestion,
such as ammonia and hydrogen sulphide are strong odours that can be
detected for a long distance from the source (Elliot et al. 1978). Other
compounds released are odourless, such as methane.
Odour dispersion
When air carries an odour from the source, dispersion or dilution of the odour
occurs. This results in a declining odour concentration with increasing
distance downwind of the source. This reduction in odour concentration is
dependent on the atmospheric stability at the time.
Odour will not disperse and mix on a cold and still night as it would during a
windy hot day. The stability criteria explain how such factors as the time of
day, clo ud cover and wind speed affect odour dispersion. In simple terms, the
lower the stability class (closer to A) the better the odour disperses and
subsequently the potential for odour nuisance is less. (See Table next page)

Pasquill's stability categories [Adapted from Pasquill et al 1983]
Wind Day time Night time

speed
At 10m Incoming solar radiation Cloud cover
m/s Strong Medium Slight Mostly Mostly

overcast clear
<2 A A-B B G G
2-3 A-B B C E F
3-5 B B-C C D E
5-6 C C-D D D D
>6 C D D D D
*Where A = best odour dispersion
Air scrubbing with Anotec ™ spraying equipment to reduce odour levels within
swine buildings has been studied and is recommended for use most building
designers that are unable to control odours within their units by other means.
Anotec ™ Odour control chemicals are widely available. Extensive data exists
concerning the effectiveness of the formulations in a variety of industries.
Anotec ™ has been proven to be effective under specialised conditions; and
other formulations have been developed for “routine” or “known” odours. The
cost of using Anotec ™ odour co ntrol chemicals is variable depending on the
type of formulation and vo lumes required, but generally they are an
inexpensive alternative to masking agents or other “odour control” chemicals.
Research has shown that “other” Liquid products are quoted at $10-20 per
litre and solid forms at $1-15 per 500 gms. Anotec ™ products are available in
a concentrated formulation at a cost considerably lower than those mentioned
above. It is important that a trial be conducted with the Anotec ™ control
chemical to make certain it operates to your satisfaction before you buy large
quantities.
Anotec ™ wet scrubbing of the exhaust air with its chemicals can
significantly reduce odours (66-98%) and is inexpensive. Spraying the

Anotec Oil Phase product onto the surface of a manure pit, carcass pit or
waste pile to keep settled dust from going back into the air has resulted in a
70% reduction in odours.
Anotec ™ Odour Control Additives (OCAs) can be added to deep pits. Field
tests have shown approximately a 32% year-round reduction in ammonia
emissions by delivering Anotec™ in metered amounts to the pit surface in
grow-finish buildings.
Anotec ™ has the technology to incorporate other techniques that include

perimeter spray systems and windbreaks to disperse the odours and shield
the livestock enterprise from direct sight. These and other approaches have
been tried and succeeded where odour control is especially critical and the
additional cost is justified.
An important effort involves being a good neighbour and trying to influence

your neighbour’s attitude in a positive way. Practice good public relations by
sharing some of the good things from your farm with neighbours. Invite them
over for a barbecue!!

Other ideas and techniques to assist you in your
Quest for total odour control management.
You can use an odour setback guideline under development at Purdue

University to calculate appropriate setbacks. It is when your current
facilities appear too close to neighbouring residences that you need to
use best management practices and odour-reduction methods as
recommended by Anotec ™ to reduce the odour impact of the facility
on the neighbours. The table below provides the shortest and lo ngest
distances estimated by the odour setback guideline for gestation sows
and nursery pigs. These recommended distances were calculated with
the maximum factors for building design and management, odour
abatement, and land use. The effects of wind frequency and
surrounding topography on atmospheric dilution are shown as the
extreme cases of worst and best dispersion. Actual distances will
depend on site-specific wind characteristics. The model provides
setback distances in eight directions from the facility. Call Anotec ™
to arrange for access to the Setback program from Purdue University.
Recommended Setback Distances Between

Swine Buildings and Residential Areas.
Number Of Head Gestating Sows Nursery Pigs

Dispersion Dispersion
Best Worst Best Worst
(m) (m) (m) (m)
100 86 144 48 79
500 193 321 106 177
1000 272 454 150 250
2000 386 643 212 354
3000 472 787 260 433
4000 545 909 300 500
5000 610 1016 336 559
7500 746 1244 411 685
10000 862 1437 475 791

Separation distance plays an important role in the dispersion of odours
from piggeries. Sufficient distance should lie between a piggery
complex and the property boundary (or nearest receptor) in order to
ensure sufficient odour dispersal when the atmosphere is stable.
Installing vertical stacks or chimneys exhausting above the ridgeline

could, in so me instances, better disperse exhaust odour. However, the
method is only likely to be successful when houses are located very
near the farm causing the nuisance. The tall chimneys are beneficial
because of the high airflow rates in the summer and an Anotec ™
Odour Control System treating at the exit point will ensure total and
effective odour control. Most importantly though, it is because of the
summer months that the chimneys have to be insulated and secured
with guy wires.
The establishment of an automated meteorological station network to

gather high quality data specific to a region.
Schematic drawing of a weather station that will enable high quality

meteorological data to be collected and used in odour dispersion modelling
applications for intensive livestock industries, as well as in support of research
projects gathering emission data and in assessment of odour impact. (QLD
Dept of Agriculture).

Suggested management practices
The measurement of odour generation rate and odour intensity is a

developing science. The technology for odour measurement has not, in
Anotec’s ™ opinion, been developed for its use as a regulatory tool. As such
the suggested ideal management practices, as directly quoted from the QLD
Dept of Agriculture, are to:
Avoid excessive manure build up in piggery buildings and below floor

pit areas.
Have external open drains that are impervious, with non-earthen base
and sides, which are kept clean and dry between uses.
Manage ponds to ensure minimal crusting and an even effluent loading

that does not exceed the design capacity of the pond system.
Incorporate piggery solids (sludge and screenings) into the soil within
24 ho urs of spreading, where practical.
Manage and site manure so as to avoid odour nuisances.
Advise neighbours in advance of any management practices that may

lead to odour nuisances.
Other methods of reducing odour complaints
The old saying “out of site - out of mind” works very well for piggeries. The
planting of trees around existing piggeries or siting new piggeries in a wooded
area will make them less obvious to the public and generally reduce the
incidence of odour complaints. Properly planted tree buffers also have the
potential to reduce odour detection at receptors by dispersing the odour.
And, as discussed earlier in this document, it is also advisable to set up lines
of communication with neighbours. Many odour complaints arise from
disagreements and misunderstanding.

Some Useful Terminology
The standards for the terminology below are identified as ASAE S466,
Nomenclature/Termino logy for Livestock Waste/Manure Handling Equipment
and ASAE S292.4, Uniform Terminology for Rural Waste Management. The
following definitions, also directly relative to lagoon management, have been
taken from ASAE S466 and ASAE 292.4 with the permission of the American
Society of Agricultural Engineers:
Aerobic bacteria: Bacteria that require free elemental oxygen for their
growth. Oxygen in chemical combination will not support aerobic organisms.
Aerobic decomposition: Reduction of the net energy level of organic matter

by aerobic micro-organisms.
Aeration: A process causing intimate contact between air and a liquid by one
or more of the following methods: (a) spraying the liquid in the air, (b) bubbling
air through the liquid, and (c) agitating the liquid to promote absorption of
oxygen through the air liquid interface.
Aeration unit: A tank or lagoon in which sludge, wastewater, or other liquid is

aerated.
Anaerobic bacteria: Bacteria not requiring the presence of free or dissolved

oxygen. Facultative anaerobes can be active in the presence of dissolved
oxygen, but do not require it.
Anaerobic decomposition: Reduction of the net energy level of organic

matter by anaerobic micro-organisms in the absence of oxygen.
Bacteria: A group of universally distributed, rigid, essentially unicellular

prokaryotic micro-organisms. Bacteria usually appear as spheroid, rod-like or
curved entities, but occasionally appear as sheets, chains, or branched
filaments.
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD): The quantity of oxygen used in the

biochemical oxidation of organic matter in a specified time, at a specified
temperature, and under specified conditions. Normally 5 days at 200C unless
otherwise stated. A standard test used in assessing the biodegradable
organic matter in municipal wastewater.

Biogas: Gaseous product of anaerobic digestion that consists primarily of
methane and carbon dioxide.
Chemical oxygen demand (COD): A measure of the oxygen-consuming

capacity of inorganic and organic matter present in water or wastewater. It is
expressed as the amount of oxygen consumed from a chemical oxidant in a
specified test. It does not differentiate between stable and unstable organic
matter and thus does not necessarily correlate with biochemical oxygen
demand.
Composting: Biological degradation of organic matter under aerobic
conditions to a relatively stable humus-like material called compost.
Denitrification: The reduction of oxidized nitrogen compounds (such as

nitrates) to nitrogen gas or nitrous oxide gas.
Detention pond: An earthen structure constructed to store runoff water and

other wastewater until such time as the liquid may be recycled onto land.
Sometimes called holding ponds or waste storage ponds.
Detention time: The time wastes are subjected to a stabilization process or

held in storage.
Digestion: Usually refers to the breakdown of organic matter in water solution

or suspension into simpler or more biologically stable compounds, or both. In
anaerobic digestion organic matter may be decomposed to soluble organic
acids or alcoho ls and subsequently converted to such gases as methane and
carbon dioxide. Complete decomposition of organic solid materials to gases
and water by bacterial action alone is never accomplished.
Dissolved oxygen (DO): The molecular oxygen dissolved in water,

wastewater, or other liquid, usually expressed in milligrams per litre, parts per
million, or percent of saturation.
Earthen storage basin: An earthen structure usually with sloping sides and a
flat floor, constructed to store semisolid, slurry or liquid manure. Also called a
waste storage pond.
Effluent: The discharge of wastewater or other liquid, treated or untreated.
Electrical conductivity: A measure of a solution's ability to carry an electrical

current; varies both with the number and type of ions contained by the
solution.
Escherichia coli (E. Coli): One of the species of bacteria in the intestinal
tract of warm-blooded animals. Its presence is considered indicative of fresh
faecal contamination.
Facultative bacteria: Bacteria that can use either free oxygen or reduced
carbon compounds as electron acceptors (as in organic substrates like
sugars, starches, etc.) in their metabolism.

Fertilizer value: An estimate of the value of commercial fertilizer elements (N,
P, K) that can be replaced by manure or organic waste material. Usually
expressed as dollars per to n of manure or quantity of nutrients per ton of
manure.
Fixed solids: The portion of the total solids remaining as an ash or residue
when heated at a specific temperature and time (usually 61600C or 111 20F
for at least one hour).
Food to micro-organisms’ ratio (F/M): The weight ratio of biodegradable
organic matter (BOD) to micro-organisms.
Flushing system: A system that collects and transports or moves waste

material with the use of water such as in washing of pens and flushing
livestock systems.
Grassed infiltration area: An area with vegetative cover where runoff water
infiltrates into the soil.
Gravity separation systems: Structures, which utilise gravity to collect more

dense particulate solids by allowing them to settle out of highly liquid manure.
The structure may be of any shape but with a relatively shallow depth.
Infiltration rate: The rate at which water enters the soil or other porous
material under a given condition, expressed as depth of water per unit time,
usually in millimetres per hour.
Influent: Water, wastewater, or other liquid flowing into a reservoir, basin, or

treatment plant, or any unit thereof.
Lagoon: An earthen structure for the storage and biological treatment of

wastewater. Lagoons can be aerobic, anaerobic, or facultative depending on
their loading and design.
Land application: Applicatio n of manure, sewage sludge, municipal

wastewater and industrial wastes to land either for ultimate disposal or for
reuse of the nutrients and organic matter for their fertilizer value.
Leaching: (1) The removal of soluble constituents such as nitrates or

chlorides from soils or other material by water. (2) The removal of salts and
alkali from soils by irrigation combined with drainage. (3) The disposal of a
liquid through a non-watertight artificial structure, conduit, or porous material
by downward or lateral drainage, or both, into the surrounding permeable soil.
Loading rate: The quantity of material added per unit volume or unit area per
unit time.
Mechanical solids separation: The process of separating suspended solids

from a liquid-carrying medium by trapping the particles on a mechanical
screen or sieve, or by centrifugation.

Sedimentation tank: A unit in which water or wastewater containing settable
solids is retained to remove by gravity a part of the suspended matter. Also
called sedimentation basin, settling basin, settling tank or settling terrace.
Seepage: (1) Percolation of water through the soil. (2) The slow movement of
water through small cracks, pores, interstices, of a material. (3) The loss of
liquid by infiltration from a canal, reservoir, manure tank or manure stack. It is
generally expressed as flow volume per unit time.
Settable solids: (1) That matter in wastewater that will not stay in suspension
during a preselected settling period, such as o ne hour. (2) In the Imhoff cone
test, the volume of matter that settles to the bottom of the cone.
Settling basins: A relatively long-term separation structure, larger in size

than a settling tank. Solids collection is by mechanical means once the liquids
evaporate or have been drained away.
Settling tank: A relatively short-term separation structure, smaller in size than

a settling basin. The liquid is allowed to fully drain away for solids removal by
mechanical means.
Solids content: (1) The sum of the dissolved and suspended constituents in
water or wastewater. (2) The residue remaining when the water is evaporated
away from a sample of sewage, other liquids, or semi-solid masses of
material and the residue is then dried at a specified temperature (usually
1030C for 24 h); usually stated in milligrams per litre or percent solids.
Static inclined screen: A screen, mounted on an incline, over which manure

passes as it flows by gravity from a top head box. The liquid passes through
the screen due to its flow momentum and surface tension, while solids
continue over and flow off the end of the screen.
Surface aerator: A partially submerged impeller whose action results in

vigorous agitation and air entrainment. The impeller may be mounted on floats
in a storage structure with varying liquid levels or fixed in a constant liquid
system. An electric or hydraulic motor coupled directly to the impeller may
supply power.
Suspended solids: (1) Solids that are in water, wastewater, or other liquids,
and which are largely removable by filtering or centrifuging. (2) The quantity of
material filtered from wastewater in a laboratory test, as prescribed in APHA
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.
Vibrating screen: A circular or square shallow container with a replaceable

screen bottom. The assembly is vibrated both vertically and horizontally.
Manure flows into the container, where liquids pass through the screen and
the solids are collected to the side of the container.

Volatile solids: That portio n of the total so lids driven off as volatile
(combustible) gases at a specified temperature and time (usually 6000C or for
at least 1 h).
Volatile suspended solids (VSS): That portion of the suspended solids

driven off as volatile (combustible) gases at a specified temperature and time
(usually 6000C for at least 20 min).

Anotec Pig Production and Odours

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anotec Pig Production and Odours

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Livestock farming: A General Overview of Swine Production, Odours &

the Anotec ™ Solution

The factors that contribute to the impact of an odour nuisance on a recipient

© Victoria Zavras 2001

• Boars may be house in individual paddocks with single sows

© Victoria Zavras 2001

© Victoria Zavras 2001

Breeding Herd Feeding Herd

Boar - breeding male

Weaning - separation of sow and litter

Materials and Equipment

• Materials and equipment used in the construction of pig houses should

• All automatic ventilation systems should include an alarm that gives

• All automatic equipment, for example, feed augers and ventilation

© Victoria Zavras 2001

• Pigs should not be kept in permanent darkness. The light provided

Stock Inspection / Sick Pigs

Feed and Water

Teeth and Tails

© Victoria Zavras 2001

The Not-So-Simple Problem of Swine Odours

How can those odours be reduced or made less offensive?

© Victoria Zavras 2001

How people respond:

To complicate matters further, our sensitivities and reactions to odours are,

In general, the best odour-control system is a well-managed farm. However,

© Victoria Zavras 2001

Manure can also be stored as a liquid in concrete or metal tanks, open or

© Victoria Zavras 2001

Carcass disposal. For example, a 1,000-sow farrow-to-finish operation may

Measures and Thresholds

If we assume that eliminating all odours from swine operations is neither

Despite these complications, measures and thresholds are possible and

© Victoria Zavras 2001

While no single method or technology is likely to account for all of the

A Role for New Technologies

Stringent regulations in several European countries have, in some cases, led

For industry, consumers, and government there is a mutual interest in the

© Victoria Zavras 2001

The Search for Solutions

Sources of Odour: Where is it coming from?

© Victoria Zavras 2001

Generally, odours were lower around buildings using under-floor or tunnel

Dietary Amendments: What a great idea!

Many products are available for allegedly treating or preventing odours in

© Victoria Zavras 2001

Counteractants are aromatic oils that cancel or neutralize an odour so that

Digestive deodorants contain bacteria or enzymes that eliminate odours

Chemical deodorants are strong oxidizing agents or germicides. Germicides

Anotec ™ Odour Control Products (OCPs) are formulations based on the

© Victoria Zavras 2001

Anotec ™ Odour Control works as an odour eliminator by combating each

To date, all testing and removal efficiencies as calculated by the

© Victoria Zavras 2001

Whilst Anotec ™ OCPs have been proven to be successful in the significant

Don’t forget about: Ventilation

An Underslat Ventilation System

© Victoria Zavras 2001

Aerobic Treatment, in Brief

© Victoria Zavras 2001

Generally, all of these systems incur significant costs in construction,

The Anotec ™ range of Odour Contro l Systems is capable of treating large

© Victoria Zavras 2001

A similar system was tested in Malaysia using a two-nozzle system for a