Proceedings available at: http://www.extension.org/67661 Animal agriculture is looking for innovative means to dispose of mortalities. Composting is an environmentally friendly option that retains the nutrients of the animal and organic materials. Southern U.S. swine farrowing operations often use sawdust as a C source for mortality composting. The objective of this study was to compare the farm standard mortality composting procedure (using sawdust and water) with other mixtures having supplementary C and N provided by broiler litter and by replacing water with swine lagoon effluent.

1. EMISSIONS FROM SWINEEMISSIONS FROM SWINE
MORTALITY COMPOSTSMORTALITY COMPOSTS
Dana MilesDana Miles
Mike McLaughlinMike McLaughlin
John BrooksJohn Brooks
Ardeshir AdeliArdeshir Adeli
USDA-ARS Genetics & Precision AgricultureUSDA-ARS Genetics & Precision Agriculture
Research Unit, Mississippi State, MSResearch Unit, Mississippi State, MS

2. Why compost?Why compost?
 It’s old as dirt.It’s old as dirt.
 For centuries, composting has beenFor centuries, composting has been
used to recycle organic material backused to recycle organic material back
into the soil.into the soil.
 Other benefits:Other benefits:
-destroys pathogens-destroys pathogens
-converts N from NH-converts N from NH33 to moreto more
stable organic formsstable organic forms
-reduces volume of waste-reduces volume of waste

3. Swine population continuesSwine population continues
to increase worldwideto increase worldwide
 This means more pig waste that needsThis means more pig waste that needs
to be dealt with in ways that are:to be dealt with in ways that are:
– Environmentally sensibleEnvironmentally sensible
– Economically realisticEconomically realistic
– Socially acceptableSocially acceptable

4. Did you know?Did you know?
 The daily manure output of a pig isThe daily manure output of a pig is
approximatelyapproximately 6%6% of its body weight?of its body weight?
 In various types of 100-sow units, theIn various types of 100-sow units, the
range of fresh manure produced isrange of fresh manure produced is
600-2800 kg/d.600-2800 kg/d.

5. Another type of wasteAnother type of waste
 U. S. swine farrowing facilities routinelyU. S. swine farrowing facilities routinely
compost daily mortalities using open staticcompost daily mortalities using open static
piles.piles.
 The amount of annual mortality for a 1000-The amount of annual mortality for a 1000-
sow farrowing to finish farm was estimatedsow farrowing to finish farm was estimated
at 20 tons (Imbeah, 1998).at 20 tons (Imbeah, 1998).
 For a 2000-head finishing operation, justFor a 2000-head finishing operation, just
over 2 tons of mortality may be expectedover 2 tons of mortality may be expected
annually (Vansickle, 2013).annually (Vansickle, 2013).

6. PurposePurpose
Improve practices to dispose ofImprove practices to dispose of
swine farrowing mortalities.swine farrowing mortalities.

7. Objective:Objective:
Compare sawdust and water (standard)Compare sawdust and water (standard)
to other mixtures where additional Cto other mixtures where additional C
and N were supplied by:and N were supplied by:
 Broiler litterBroiler litter
 Swine lagoon effluentSwine lagoon effluent

8. Objective:Objective:
Assess potential risks and benefits ofAssess potential risks and benefits of
adding broiler litter and swine effluent toadding broiler litter and swine effluent to
compost by comparingcompost by comparing
 Nutrient levelsNutrient levels
 Bacterial pathogensBacterial pathogens
 Gaseous emissionsGaseous emissions

9. MethodologyMethodology

10. Compost TreatmentsCompost Treatments
 227-L covered heavy-duty plastic227-L covered heavy-duty plastic
recycling binsrecycling bins
 Three replications of fourThree replications of four
treatments:treatments:
– Sawdust/water SWSawdust/water SW
– Sawdust/litter/water SLWSawdust/litter/water SLW
– Sawdust/effluent SESawdust/effluent SE
– Sawdust/litter/effluent SLESawdust/litter/effluent SLE

11. ParametersParameters
 Nutrients:Nutrients:
– C, N, P, K, Mg, Mn, Na, Cu, ZnC, N, P, K, Mg, Mn, Na, Cu, Zn
 Microorganisms:Microorganisms:
– Clostridium perfringensClostridium perfringens
– Escherichia coliEscherichia coli
– Listeria spp.Listeria spp.
– Salmonella spp.Salmonella spp.
– Gram-positive and Gram-negativeGram-positive and Gram-negative
bacteriabacteria

12. ParametersParameters
 Temperature, Moisture of mixturesTemperature, Moisture of mixtures
 Emissions:Emissions:
– COCO22, N, N22O, CHO, CH44 via gas chromatographyvia gas chromatography
(GRACEnet methodology)(GRACEnet methodology)
– NHNH33, CO, CO22, N, N22O, CHO, CH44 via photoacoustic gasvia photoacoustic gas
analyzeranalyzer
Measurement Dates:
March – July 2012

13. ResultsResults
S
W
SLW SE SL
E

14. Temperatures:Temperatures:
Ambient & Compost MixturesAmbient & Compost Mixtures
Validation Study-Daily NH3
Ambient temperature
Broiler litter inclusion increased compost temperatures.

15. C:N at start and endC:N at start and end
 Start EndStart End
 SW 489SW 489 8585
 SLW 21SLW 21 2121
 SE 160 58SE 160 58
 SLE 20SLE 20 2020
Approximately 15 g/kg N added withApproximately 15 g/kg N added with
broiler litter.broiler litter.

16. NutrientsNutrients
More P, K, Mg, Mn, Cu, Zn were presentMore P, K, Mg, Mn, Cu, Zn were present
initially in the broiler litter treatments.initially in the broiler litter treatments.
Only Na appeared similar among theOnly Na appeared similar among the
treatments.treatments.

17. Recovery of BacteriaRecovery of Bacteria
 Clostridium perfringens:Clostridium perfringens:
– Among treatments there were significantAmong treatments there were significant
differences at p=0.05, withdifferences at p=0.05, with greater levelsgreater levels
in the two effluent treatmentsin the two effluent treatments when thewhen the
experiment began. At turn 1 and the end,experiment began. At turn 1 and the end,
there were no differences.there were no differences.
– Within each treatment there were noWithin each treatment there were no
significant differences over time ,significant differences over time ,
measured at the start, turn 1 and end ofmeasured at the start, turn 1 and end of
the experiment.the experiment.

18. Recovery of BacteriaRecovery of Bacteria
 Gram-negative bacteria:Gram-negative bacteria:
– Among treatments there were noAmong treatments there were no
significant differences at any time.significant differences at any time.
– Within each treatment there were noWithin each treatment there were no
significant differences except that thesignificant differences except that the
SW levels decreased over time (p=0.05).SW levels decreased over time (p=0.05).

19. Recovery of BacteriaRecovery of Bacteria
 Gram-positive bacteria:Gram-positive bacteria:
– Among treatments there were significantAmong treatments there were significant
differences at p=0.001, with greater levelsdifferences at p=0.001, with greater levels
in the two broiler litter treatments.in the two broiler litter treatments.
– Within the SE treatment, there was noWithin the SE treatment, there was no
significant change over time. In the othersignificant change over time. In the other
treatments, levels decreased significantlytreatments, levels decreased significantly
over time (p=0.05).over time (p=0.05).

20. EmissionsEmissions
 Each 24 h for first 4 daysEach 24 h for first 4 days
 Each 24 h for 4 days after turn 1Each 24 h for 4 days after turn 1
 Each 24 h for 2 days after turn 2Each 24 h for 2 days after turn 2
 EndEnd

21. Initial NHInitial NH33 fluxflux

22. NHNH33 flux after turn 1flux after turn 1

23. NHNH33 flux after turn 2 & endflux after turn 2 & end

24. CO2 Flux g/(m2 h) CH4 Flux mg/(m2 h)N2O Flux mg/(m2 h)
S
W
SLW
SE
SL
E
S
W
SLW
SE
SL
E
S
W
SLW
SE
SL
E
N2O CO2 CH4
Turn1
Turn2
Turn1
Turn2
Turn1
Turn2

25. ConclusionsConclusions
 Adding broiler litter to sawdustAdding broiler litter to sawdust
(1:1/w:w) increased compost(1:1/w:w) increased compost
temperatures after aerationtemperatures after aeration
(mixing and turning).(mixing and turning).

26. ConclusionsConclusions
 Litter increased levels of someLitter increased levels of some
nutrients and bacteria, but changesnutrients and bacteria, but changes
and levels were not consistent.and levels were not consistent.
 NHNH33 , N, N22O and COO and CO22 emissions wereemissions were
higher after early aeration; CHhigher after early aeration; CH44
emissions peaked later.emissions peaked later.

27. ConclusionsConclusions
 Composting offers environmentallyComposting offers environmentally
sound disposition of these byproductssound disposition of these byproducts
and manures.and manures.

28. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 Rhonda Cornelius, Renotta Smith,Rhonda Cornelius, Renotta Smith,
Cindy Smith, Mary Hardy, TimCindy Smith, Mary Hardy, Tim
Fairbrother, and Walter WoolfolkFairbrother, and Walter Woolfolk
 Farm ownerFarm owner
 Introductory material:Introductory material:
Imbeah. 1998. Composting piggery waste: A review.Imbeah. 1998. Composting piggery waste: A review.
Bioresource Technology 63:197-203.Bioresource Technology 63:197-203.
Vansickle. 2013. http://nationalhogfarmer.com/resources/es
.

29. Thank you!Thank you!