Methods: First, the experiment was conducted on a lab-scale, treated with 1%, 2%, 5% and 10% extracts in manure, followed by reaction for 3 days. The concentrations of NH3, H2S and CH3SH were measured using a gas detector. A scale-up odor reduction experiment was then conducted in a swine house. Finally, the odor reduction effect was compared with the commercial product (M-product) for evaluation.
Results: As a result of comparing the ammonia gas reduction with respect to the concentration of the yeast-derived extract, it was confirmed that the reduction of ammonia was improved depending on the treated concentration in both samples of Yeast-W and Yeast-SS. The concentration of NH3, H2S, and CH3SH from swine house showed significant differences between that of manure from the control and extract treatment group, with Yeast-SS showing the highest efficacy. The reduction rate of Yeast-SS 1% treatment on NH3 was 46.7%, which appeared similar to that of 2% treatment of M-product. Also, the reduction rate of Yeast 2% treatment reached a maximum of 53.4%, which showed a high efficiency for the reduction of NH3. Conclusion: Yeast-SS is an effective odor removal agent even at low concentrations compared with other odor reducing agents, with potential applicability as an environmental improvement agent for managing odorous gas of swine manure.
Odor NH3H2S CH3SH Yeast-derived extract
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
This work was carried out with the support of ?Cooperative Research Program for agriculture Science & Technology Development (Project No: PJ01267701) Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Allen, G. M. in Bats: biology, behavior, and folklore (Dover Publications, 2004).Google Scholar
Donham, K. J. The concentration of swine production: Effects on swine health, productivity, human health, and the environment. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract.16, 559–597 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, Y.-l. et al. Odor composition analysis and odor indicator selection during sewage sludge composting. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc.66, 930–940 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahman, S. & Borhan, M. Typical odor mitigation technologies for swine production facilities: A review. J. Civ. Environ. Eng. 2, 117 (2012).Google Scholar
Kim, Y.-J., Ahmed, S. T., Islam, M. M. & Yang, C.-J. Evaluation of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens as manure additive for control of odorous gas emissions from pig slurry. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res.8, 2540–2546 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrory, D. & Hobbs, P. Additives to reduce ammonia and odor emissions from livestock wastes. J. Environ. Qual.30, 345–355 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, J. A review of microbiology in swine manure odor control. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.78, 93–106 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, K.-H., Kam, S.-K., Hu, C.-G. & Lee, M.-G. The effect of reduction of contaminants and odor according to the additives in the anaerobic maturation process of piggery slurry. J. Environ. Sci. Int.15, 169–175 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edens, F. An alternative for antibiotic se in poultry: probiotics. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Avic.5, 75–97 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Line, J. E., Bailey, J. S., Cox, N. A., Stern, N. J. & Tompkins, T. Effect of yeast-supplemented feed on Salmonella and Campylobacter populations in broilers. Poultry Sci.77, 405–410 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roto, S. M., Rubinelli, P. M. & Ricke, S. C. An introduction to the avian gut microbiota and the effects of yeast-based prebiotic-type compounds as potential feed additives. Front Vet. Sci.2, 28 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanes-Vidal, V. et al. Characterization of odor released during handling of swine slurry: Part I. Relationship between odorants and perceived odor concentrations. Atmos. Environ.43, 2997–3005 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blunden, J. & Aneja, V. P. Characterizing ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions from a swine waste treatment lagoon in North Carolina. Atmos. Environ.42, 3277–3290 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jo, S.-H. et al. Odor characterization from barns and slurry treatment facilities at a commercial swine facility in South Korea. Atmos. Environ.119, 339–347 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruun, S., ten Hoeve, M. & Birkved, M. in Animal Manure Recycling 329–341 (Wiley, 2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, S.-J., Hsieh, L.-T., Hwang, W.-I., Xu, H.-C. & Kao, J.-H. Abatement of odor emissions from landfills using natural effective microorganism enzyme. Aerosol Air Qual. Res3, 87–99 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, D. et al. Effect of dietary yeast (Saccharomyces exiguus) on growth performance, Cecal microflora and fecal ammonia gas in broiler chickens. Korean J. Poult. Sci.34, 137–141 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, K. et al. Use of Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product on growth performance and microbiota of weaned pigs during Salmonella infection. J. Anim. Sci88, 3896–3908 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trevisi, P. et al. Comparison of three patterns of feed supplementation with live Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast on postweaning diarrhea, health status, and blood metabolic profile of susceptible weaning pigs orally challenged with Escherichia coli F4ac. J. Anim. Sci.93, 2225–2233 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uludag-Demirer, S., Demirer, G. N., Frear, C. & Chen, S. Anaerobic digestion of dairy manure with enhanced ammonia removal. J. Environ. Manage.86, 193–200 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, D.-H., Kang, D.-W. & Nam, K.-W. The effect of yeast (Saccharomyces exiguus SJPAF1) on odor emission and contaminants reduction in piggery slurry. Korean J. Environ. Agric.28, 47–52 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar