Ways to Minimize Nitrogen Emissions in Agricultural Farms

  • Mohamed E. Abd El-HackEmail author
  • Ahmed E. Noreldin
  • Samir A. Mahgoub
  • Muhammad Arif
Part of the The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry book series (HEC, volume 77)


The overwhelming scientific unanimity is that gases produced by a different agricultural system including poultry farms are affecting the climate of the globe. One of the ecological defiances is poultry manure elimination and/or utilization. Chicken manure and its nitrogenous compounds could be a prospective pollutant rising eutrophication, nitrite or nitrate impurity of water, acid precipitation in the air, and ammonia volatilization. Thus, lowering nitrogen excretion in fowl litter is necessary to keep an immaculate environment. Appropriate nutrition is a significant first step to optimize growth and performance in animals and to lower the negative effects on the environment. Amino acids are components of fowl nutrition that largely affect animal growth. However, deficient or surplus amino acid supplementations in diets elevate nitrogen emission. One way to lower this emission is to prohibit uricase vigor in the microflora in chicken manure. Egg yolk antibodies are economic alternates for supplementation in the diets of chickens. Administration of feed grade antibodies into poultry feed could be a probable program to reduce bacterial uricase action and minimize ammonia excretion from chicken manure. To utilize this dietary strategy efficiently, a well-balanced ration formulation and a more feasible method of delivering the antibodies in feeds need to be improved.


Agriculture Environment Farms Microbes Nitrogen emission Nutrition Reduction Uricase 


  1. 1.
    Carey J, Lacey R, Mukhtar S (2004) A review of literature concerning odors, ammonia, and dust from broiler production facilities: 2. Flock and house management factors. J Appl Poult Res 13:509–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ritz C, Fairchild B, Lacy M (2004) Implications of ammonia production and emissions from commercial poultry facilities: a review. J Appl Poult Res 13:684–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cabrera ML, Sims JT (2000) Beneficial use of poultry by-products: challenges and opportunities. Land application of agricultural, industrial, and municipal by-products. SSSA book series, vol 6. Soil Science of America, Madison, pp 425–450Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jackson B, Seaman J, Bertsch P (2006) Fate of arsenic compounds in poultry litter upon land application. Chemosphere 65:2028–2034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moore P (1998) Best management practices for poultry manure utilization that enhance agricultural productivity and reduce pollution. In: Hatfield J, Stewart B (eds) Animal waste utilization: effective use of manure as a soil resource. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, pp 89–117Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Patterson P, Lorenz E, Weaver Jr W, Schwartz J (1998) Litter production and nutrients from commercial broiler chickens. J Appl Poult Res 7(3):247–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Patterson P, Lorenz E (1996) Manure nutrient production from commercial White Leghorn hens. J Appl Poult Res 5:260–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sims J, Wolf D (1994) Poultry waste management: agricultural and environmental issues. Adv Agron 52:1–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beker A, Vanhooser S, Swartzlander J, Teeter R (2004) Atmospheric ammonia concentration effects on broiler growth and performance. J Appl Poult Res 13:5–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miles D, Branton S, Lott B (2004) Atmospheric ammonia is detrimental to the performance of modern commercial broilers. Poult Sci 83:1650–1654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Olanrewaju H, Miller W, Maslin W, Thaxton J, Dozier W, Purswell J, Branton S (2007) Interactive effects of ammonia and light intensity on ocular, fear and leg health in broiler chickens. Int J Poult Sci 10:762–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wang Y, Meng Q, Guo Y, Wang Y, Wang Z, Yao Z, Shan T (2010) Effect of atmospheric ammonia on growth performance and immunological response of broiler chickens. J Anim Vet Adv 9:2802–2806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yahav S (2004) Ammonia affects performance and thermoregulation of male broiler chickens. Anim Res 53:289–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koerkamp PG (1994) Review on emissions of ammonia from housing systems for laying hens in relation to sources, processes, building design and manure handling. J Agric Eng Res 59:73–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Petersen SO, Lind A-M, Sommer SG (1998) Nitrogen and organic matter losses during storage of cattle and pig manure. J Agric Sci 130:69–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang R, Day D (1996) Anaerobic decomposition of swine manure and ammonia generation in a deep pit. Trans ASAE 39:1811–1815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kroodsma W, Scholtens R, Huis J (1988) Ammonia emission from poultry housing systems. In: Nielsen VC, Voorburg JH, L’Hermite P (eds) Volatile emissions from livestock farming and sewage operations. Elsevier, London, New York, pp 152–161Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jiang J (2000) Odour emission from broiler farm litter. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, RIRDC Publication No 2000Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hunde A, Patterson P, Ricke S, Kim WK (2012) Supplementation of poultry feeds with dietary zinc and other minerals and compounds to mitigate nitrogen emissions – a review. Biol Trace Elem Res 147:386–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kirchmann H, Witter E (1989) Ammonia volatilization during aerobic and anaerobic manure decomposition. Plant Soil 115:35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Glimp HA, Tillman AD (1964) Effect of Jackbean urease injections and chlortetracycline on rate of gain and feed efficiency in Swine. J Anim Sci 23:963–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Visek W (1962) Studies on urea hydrolysis in birds and mammals. Am J Vet Res 23:569–574Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schade R, Calzado EG, Sarmiento R, Chacana PA, Porankiewicz-Asplund J, Terzolo HR (2005) Chicken egg yolk antibodies (IgY-technology): a review of progress in production and use in research and human and veterinary medicine. Altern Lab Anim 33:129–154Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Larsson A, Bålöw R-M, Lindahl TL, Forsberg P-O (1993) Chicken antibodies: taking advantage of evolution – a review. Poult Sci 72:1807–1812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cai Y, Chen J (2009) Chicken egg yolk immunoglobulin and its application in medicine. Chin J Parasitol Parasit Dis 27:527–530Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tizard I (2012) Veterinary immunology: an introduction.9th edn. Saunders College Publishing, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Biswas D, Herrera P, Fang L, Marquardt RR, Ricke SC (2010) Cross-reactivity of anti Salmonella egg-yolk antibodies to Salmonella serovars. J Environ Sci Health B 45:790–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gassmann M, Thömmes P, Weiser T, Hübscher U (1990) Efficient production of chicken egg yolk antibodies against a conserved mammalian protein. FASEB J 4:2528–2532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tini M, Jewell U, Camenisch G, Chilov D, Gassmann M (2002) Generation and application of chicken egg-yolk antibodies. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 131:569–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lösch U, Schranner I, Wanke R, Jürgens L (1986) The chicken egg, an antibody source. Zoonoses Public Health 33:609–619Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    De Meulenaer B, Huyghebaert A (2001) Isolation and purification of chicken egg yolk immunoglobulins: a review. Food Agric Immunol 13:275–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kim W, Patterson P (2003) Production of an egg yolk antibody specific to microbial uricase and its inhibitory effects on uricase activity. Poult Sci 82:1554–1558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Karlsson M, Kollberg H, Larsson A (2004) Chicken IgY: utilizing the evolutionary advantage. Worlds Poult Sci J 60:341–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rose ME, Orlans E (1981) Immunoglobulins in the egg, embryo and young chick. Dev Comp Immunol 5:15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ricke S, Schaefer D, Cook M, Kang K (1988) Differentiation of ruminal bacterial species by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay using egg yolk antibodies from immunized chicken hens. Appl Environ Microbiol 54:596–599Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    O’farrelly C, Branton D, Wanke C (1992) Oral ingestion of egg yolk immunoglobulin from hens immunized with an enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli strain prevents diarrhea in rabbits challenged with the same strain. Infect Immun 60:2593–2597Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wiedemann V, Kühlmann R, Schmidt P, Erhardt W, Lösch U (1990) Chicken egg antibodies for prophylaxis and therapy of infectious intestinal diseases. Zoonoses Public Health 37:163–172Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ebina T, Tsukada K, Umezu K, Nose M, Tsuda K, Hatta H, Kim M, Yamamoto T (1990) Gastroenteritis in suckling mice caused by human rotavirus can be prevented with egg yolk immunoglobulin (IgY) and treated with a protein-bound polysaccharide preparation (PSK). Microbiol Immunol 34:617–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Otake S, Nishihara Y, Makimura M, Hatta H, Kim M, Yamamoto T, Hirasawa M (1991) Protection of rats against dental caries by passive immunization with hen-egg-yolk antibody (IgY). J Dent Res 70:162–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kelleher B, Leahy J, Henihan A, O'dwyer T, Sutton D, Leahy M (2002) Advances in poultry litter disposal technology – a review. Bioresour Technol 83:27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bolan NS, Szogi A, Chuasavathi T, Seshadri B, Rothrock MJ, Panneerselvam P (2010) Uses and management of poultry litter. Worlds Poult Sci J 66:673–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Abouelenien F, Kitamura Y, Nishio N, Nakashimada Y (2009) Dry anaerobic ammonia–methane production from chicken manure. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 82:757–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Güngör-Demirci G, Demirer GN (2004) Effect of initial COD concentration, nutrient addition, temperature and microbial acclimation on anaerobic treatability of broiler and cattle manure. Bioresour Technol 93:109–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tiso M, Schechter AN (2015) Nitrate reduction to nitrite, nitric oxide and ammonia by gut bacteria under physiological conditions. PLoS One 10:e0119712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bartoš P, Dolan A, Smutný L, Šístková M, Celjak I, Šoch M, Havelka Z (2016) Effects of phytogenic feed additives on growth performance and on ammonia and greenhouse gases emissions in growing-finishing pigs. Anim Feed Sci Technol 212:143–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Čermák B, Hnisová J, Petraskova E, Šoch M, Kadlec J, Lad F, Vostoupal B (2010) The influence of the different levels of crude proteins in feed mixture for pigs and poultry and biopolym adition to concentrate for farm building microclimate. Sci Papers Anim Sci Biotechnol 43:26–28Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Čermák B, Hnisová J, Petrášková E, Šoch M, Vostoupal B (2011) Influence of biological agents effects on reduction of ammonia concentration in stables of intensive farm animals breeding. Sci Papers Anim Sci Biotechnol 44:482–485Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohamed E. Abd El-Hack
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ahmed E. Noreldin
    • 2
  • Samir A. Mahgoub
    • 3
  • Muhammad Arif
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Poultry, Faculty of AgricultureZagazig UniversityZagazigEgypt
  2. 2.Department of Histology and Cytology, Faculty of Veterinary MedicineDamanhour UniversityDamanhourEgypt
  3. 3.Department of Microbiology, Faculty of AgricultureZagazig UniversityZagazigEgypt
  4. 4.Department of Animal Sciences, University College of AgricultureUniversity of SargodhaSargodhaPakistan

Personalised recommendations