Particulate Matter Adjacent to Cattle Deep-Bedded Monoslope Facilities

790 views
613 views

Published on

Proceedings available at: http://www.extension.org/67704

Confined cattle facilities are an increasingly common housing system in the Northern Great Plains region. Many of these facilities add organic bedding material to the pens once or twice per week. Particulate matter concentrations and emissions from these facilities have not been evaluated. The objective of this study was to quantify particulate matter concentration adjacent to a deep-bedded monoslope facility housing cattle and to compare the concentrations during normal operation and a bedding event.

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
790
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
127
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • The primary monoslope air quality project is funded by a USDA AFRI Air Quality Grant that includes researchers from South Dakota State University, Iowa State University, the Livestock Poultry and Environmental Learning Center, and the USDA Agricultural Research Service in Clay Center, NE. The project that will be discussed today is a sub-project of the overall grant and included ARS researchers from the USDA Cotton Production and Processing Research Unit in Lubbock, TX, who study particulate matter associated with cotton ginning.
  • Currently CERCLA reports use a single value for ammonia and hydrogen sulfide based on summertime measurements from open feedlots in four states (some Southern). This probably is not reflective of deep-bedded barns. Beef cattle barns were not included in the original NAEMS project so accurate emission data is not available for beef cattle confinement barns. Manure handling systems include: weekly total scrape (no deep pack) vs deep-pack/clean around edges weekly
  • Monitoring was continuous every other month over 2 years to get at seasonal trends and changes in the animal growth cycle. There were be two pens monitored per barn. PM 10 is what can get into esophagus. PM 2.5 is what can settle at the bottom of the lungs.
  • To monitor particulate matter, Minivols were used periodically at both South Dakota barn sites to collect baseline emission data. We did not have sufficient equipment to monitor the Iowa sites using Minivols. But we did want to gather some baseline data from the bedpack barns and to evaluate particulate matter concentration relative to management events such as bedding. That lead to this sub-project in collaboration with our colleagues at the ARS Cotton Production and Processing Research Unit in Lubbock, TX.
  • This consists of three Lo-Vol units placed at the front and3 Lo-Vol units placed back of the barn. Air was drawn into the unit and dust captured on a pre-weighed filtered paper within the unit. These filters are then weighed back and calculated to determine the level of PM 10 and PM 2.5
  • Shown on this data slide are the TSP concentrations for each of the six sampling locations during the April 28 – May 5 sampling period. Samplers located on the north side of the barn are shown in blue and those located on the south side of the barn are shown in red. Average concentration over the 24 hour normal operation period are shown on April 28, May 4, and May 5 th . Three hour bedding events are shown on April 29 and May 2. The concentration of TSP during the 3 hr bedding event are clearly higher than during hours of normal operation. The average windspeed on April 29 th was 6.49 m/s. On May 2, average wind speed through the barn was 7.01 m/s.
  • This is a chart of the TSP concentrations during the June 24 – July 1 sampling event. Bedding events occurred on June 24 and June 28. Twenty-four hour samples during hours of normal operation occurred on June 29, June 30, and July 1 st . As with the previous sampling period, we see significantly higher TSP concentrations during the bedding events compared to the hours of normal operation. On June 24 th , there was a slight south wind at only about 1.9 m/s moving through the barn. June 28 th was an interesting sampling day. The wind happened to changed direction during the 3 hour sampling period. On interesting thing to note about the bedding events, is that these elevated concentrations of TSP are very short-lived. Observe the June 29 th sampling period, less than 24 hours after bedding has been added to the barn, there is very little TSP emitted from the barns.
  • Typical openlot feedlot particulate matter is 410 ug/m3.
  • Particulate Matter Adjacent to Cattle Deep-Bedded Monoslope Facilities

    1. 1. Particulate matter adjacentto cattle deep-beddedmonoslope facilitiesMindy J. SpiehsApril 4, 2013Waste to WorthDenver, CO
    2. 2. Project Overview• Project is part of USDA AFRI Air Quality Grant– South Dakota State University– Iowa State University– Livestock Poultry and Environmental LearningCenter– USDA ARS• Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE• Cotton Production and Processing Research Unit,Lubbock, TX
    3. 3. Bedding and manure management• Producers managebedding/manure twoways:– Allow a bedded pack toaccumulate in center orpen– Scrape and haul all beddingand manure weekly• Manure may be storedunder roof in manure bayor in outdoor pile untilland applied• Fresh bedding added topack 1 – 2 times per week
    4. 4. Purpose of Air Quality Grant• Gather baseline emission data from beefconfinement barns• Evaluate 2 manure handling systemsWeekly Scrape and HaulSouth Dakota SitesBedpackIowa Sites
    5. 5. Monitoring Weather• On-site weatherstation measured– Wind direction– Wind speed– Ambient airtemperature– Relative humidity
    6. 6. Monitoring the Barns• Two barns in South Dakota andtwo barns in Iowa weremonitored– Two mobile instrument trailerswere rotated between the barns– Continuous gas measurementswere taken from each barn for onemonth each season for two years• Two air inlets on the south sideof the barn and six air inlets onthe north side of the barncontinuously collected airsamples to analyze for– Ammonia– Hydrogen sulfide– Methane– Carbon dioxide– Nitrous oxide• Particulate matter wasmonitored periodically
    7. 7. Monitoring Particulate Matter• South Dakota Sites– Measured using Minivols– Collected baselineemission data• Iowa Site– Measured using Lo-VolParticulate Air Samplers– Collected baselineemission data– Evaluated particulatematter concentrationrelative to managementevents
    8. 8. Objective• Compare particulate matter concentrationadjacent to a deep-bedded monoslope facilityduring normal operation and a bedding event.
    9. 9. Sampling procedure• Lo-Vol ParticulateSamplers– Three placed 4.6 m (15 ft)from the north side of thebuilding– Three placed 4.6 m (15 ft)from the south side of thebuilding– 36.6 m (120 ft) betweenthe samplers on each side• Average sampler flowrate was 16.7 L/min.
    10. 10. Sampling procedure• Each sampler contained pre-weighed filters• At the end of the sampling period, filters were collectedand sent to USDA ARS Cotton Production and ProcessingResearch Unit, Lubbock, TX to determine totalsuspended particles (TSP).• Samples were collected over two five-day periods– April 28 – May 5, 2011– June 24 – July 1, 2011• Each sample period included three 24-hr collectionsduring normal operation and two 3-hr collections duringa bedding event
    11. 11. Statistical Analysis• Data were analyzed using SAS PROC MIXED todetermine differences between sampling events(Bedding vs. Normal Operation) and samplingperiods (April – May vs. June – July)• No event by sampling period interaction wasdetected (P = 0.1794)• No significant difference between samplingperiods was detected (P = 0.1807)
    12. 12. Results
    13. 13. Bedding EventPrevailingSouth windBedding EventPrevailingNorth wind
    14. 14. Bedding EventSlight south windBedding EventWind changeddirection duringsampling
    15. 15. Average Concentrations• Average 24-hr TSP concentration on days ofnormal operation was 58.6 ± 3.9 µg/m3• Average 3-hr particulate matter concentrationduring a bedding event was 702.2 ± 266.1µg/m3• TSP significantly higher during bedding eventscompared to normal operations (P = 0.0040)
    16. 16. Conclusions• In general, particulate matter concentrationsadjacent to the deep-bedded monoslopefacility were lower than previously reportedfor open lot feedlots.• Concentrations of TSP were higher during the3-hr bedding event than during normaloperation but quickly return to baseline levelsfollowing bedding event.
    17. 17. Thank You!

    ×