Abstract

Ammonia volatilization from poultry manure contributes to atmospheric N pollution, negatively affects poultry performance, and decreases the fertilizer value of manure. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of alum [Al2(SO4)3·14H2O], liquid alum, high acid alum (A7), aluminum chloride (AlCl3·6H2O), fly ash, Poultry Litter Treatment (PLT), and Poultry Guard (PG) litter amendments on NH3 volatilization and N contents in litter. Two laboratory studies were conducted for 42 d each. The treatments in experiment 1, which were mixed in the upper 1 cm of litter, were 4 g of alum, 8 g of alum, 8.66 g of liquid alum, 17.3 g of liquid alum, 11.2 g of A7, 22.4 g of A7, 4 g of PG, 4 g of PLT, 4 g of fly ash, and 4 g of AlCl3/100 g of litter. The treatments for experiment 2 were identical to experiment 1, except the fly ash treatment was dropped and an additional 4 g of alum/100 g of litter treatment was added, which was incorporated totally within the litter. The various rates of dry alum, liquid alum, and A7 significantly decreased NH3 volatilization compared with the controls, with reductions ranging from 77 to 96% for experiment 1 and from 78 to 96% for experiment 2, respectively. Poultry Litter Treatment decreased NH3 volatilization by 76 and 87% for experiment 1 and 2, respectively. Aluminum chloride decreased NH3 volatilization by 48 and 92% for experiment 1 and 2, respectively. Litter treated with alum, liquid alum, A7, PLT, and AlCl3 had a lower pH and a greater N content than the controls in experiment 1 and 2. In contrast, PG and fly ash resulted in a greater pH and were ineffective in decreasing NH3 volatilization and increasing N contents in experiment 1. However, in experiment 2, PG was effective in reducting NH3 loss. In this study, the decreased NH3 volatilization was chiefly associated with reduction in litter pH.

Primary Audience: Researchers, Extension Agents, Poultry Industry, Policy Makers

DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM

Poultry manure and poultry litter are well known as excellent sources of N fertilizers, as well as other major plant nutrients [1, 2]. At the time manure is excreted, uric acid (70% of the total N) and urea (up to 97% of urinary N) are the main N components present [3, 4]. After excretion, the uric acid and urea in manure are quickly converted to NH4+ via urease, which can be lost into the environment in gaseous form as NH3 [5, 6]. Ammonia can then react with NOx or SOx compounds in the atmosphere to form ammonium nitrate or ammonium sulfate particles that are less than 2.5 μm in size (particulate matter 2.5), which can cause respiratory problems in the very young and old. Due to this reason, NH3 has been designated as a particulate precursor, and air quality regulatory attention has recently been focused on the livestock and poultry industry. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada [7] reported that aerosols of ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate that form from reactions involving NH3 in Canada accounted for up to 70% of the fine particulates resulting in visibility impairment during the summer.

Methods of controlling NH3 volatilization from poultry manure have long been sought, because NH3 has significant detrimental effects on broiler production [8–10]. Factors that must be taken into account for successful litter management and the reduction in NH3 volatilization are air temperature, ventilation rate, humidity, age of the litter, litter pH, moisture content, litter temperature, and litter type [11–13]. One of the most important factors that can affect NH3 release is litter pH. Reece et al. [14] reported that very little NH3 was released from litter with a pH below 7, whereas it was rapidly released from litter with a pH above 8. Carr et al. [15] indicated that NH3 volatilization from litter increased as pH in litter increased at a constant ventilation rate.

Another detrimental problem associated with NH3 volatilization and emissions is eutrophication of rivers, lakes, and estuaries and soil acidification [4, 16–19]. Soil acidification occurs when the NH3 or NH4+ is converted to nitrate, because that is an acid-forming reaction [16]. Both ApSimon et al. [20] and Sutton et al. [21] reported that atmospheric NH3 emissions in Europe have increased by more than 50% during the last 30 yr.

Several methods to decrease the amount of N wasted and NH3 produced from poultry litter have been reported. The main methods include dietary manipulation, adequate ventilation, careful litter management, use of chemical additives to poultry litter, dietary enzymes, manure storage covers, filters for dust and odor removal, ozone utilization to decrease odors and pathogens, and different land application techniques [22–26]. Many scientists have reported that the most efficient method to inhibit NH3 production is to use chemical amendments, such as Al2(SO4)3·14H2O [27, 28], AlCl3·6H2O [29, 30], Poultry Litter Treatment (PLT) [31, 32], and Poultry Guard (PG) [33]. Various litter amendments have been classified into categories by Carlile [34]: those that inhibit microbial growth and urease production (which would slow uric acid decomposition), clays that absorb NH3 and decrease NH3 volatilization by absorbing moisture, and acidifying agents that convert NH3 to NH4+, which is not volatile. For acidifying agents, Moore et al. [35] found that the addition of alum to poultry litter decreases NH3 volatilization by as much as 99% under laboratory conditions, which resulted in a greater total N content in the litter. In commercial broiler houses, dry alum has been found to be slightly more effective than liquid alum [36, 37]. Other amendments were reported by Choi [30], who showed that use of AlCl3·6H2O in broiler litter decreased atmospheric NH3 by 97%. Strong acids like sulfuric, hydrochloric, nitric, and phosphoric are cheaper than dry acids but are hazardous to use and corrosive [4].

Although the addition of chemical amendments to poultry litter has been investigated over the past 5 decades, few studies have compared the effectiveness of these compounds. The goal of this study was to determine the effects of dry alum, liquid alum, high acid alum (A7), AlCl3·6H2O, fly ash, PLT, and PG amendments on NH3 volatilization and N content from poultry litter.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Experimental Design

Two laboratory studies were conducted for 42 d each. Eleven treatments per experiment were utilized in both studies, with 4 replications per treatment in a randomized block design. The treatments were mixed into the upper 1 cm of litter. In experiment 1, the treatments included 1) control (litter alone), 2) 4 g of dry alum, 3) 8 g of dry alum, 4) 8.66 g of liquid alum, 5) 17.3 g of liquid alum, 6) 11.2 g of A7, 7) 22.4 g of A7, 8) 4 g of PG, 9) 4 g of PLT, 10) 4 g of fly ash, and 11) 4 g of AlCl3·6H2O/100 g of litter. In experiment 2, the treatments were identical to experiment 1 except an extra 4 g of dry alum/100 g of litter treatment was used instead of fly ash, and it was incorporated with litter totally.

The low rate of the dry salts listed above (4 g/100 g of litter) is equivalent to treating a commercial broiler house with 100 lb of product/1,000 ft2 (a typical rate for many of these products), whereas the high rate is equal to 200 lb/1,000 ft2. Likewise, the low and high rates of liquid alum and A7 are equivalent to 100 or 200 lb of active ingredient/1,000 ft2.

In this study, alum simply refers to dry Al2(SO4)3·14H2O·Al+ Clear (poultry grade alum) was the form of dry alum used [38]. Liquid alum [38] is a 48.5% alum solution, whereas A7 [38] contains 36.5% alum. Poultry Guard [39] contains clay that has been acidified with sulfuric acid. Poultry Litter Treatment [40] contains sodium bisulfate and sodium sulfate. Aluminum chloride is a liquid with 27.8% AlCl3·6H2O sold as Hyper+ Ion 1000 [38].

Sampling and NH3 Gas Measurements

The poultry litter used for this study was obtained from a commercial poultry house. Approximately 10 kg of fresh poultry litter was collected, passed through a 0.5-cm mesh, and mixed thoroughly. One hundred grams of litter (21% moisture) was then weighed into each of 44 plastic containers (750 mL) with air-tight lids.

Ammonia emissions were measured as described by Moore et al. [27, 35]. The small plastic containers were equipped with air inflows and outflows. Ammonia-free air was continually passed through each chamber for 42 d per experiment, and any NH3 volatilized from the litter was trapped in 2 consecutive traps containing 80 mL of boric acid solution that was titrated daily for NH3 content with 0.10 N of HCl. Ammonia-free air was generated by passing compressed air through 2 consecutive 3-L acid traps containing 1 M HCl. After passing through the acid traps, the air was passed through 2 consecutive water traps, to remove any acid vapors. During experiment 2, the 2 water traps dried out for several days during the middle of the study, which may have resulted in acid fumes from the acid traps interacting with the litter (which may have lowered NH3 loss).

Chemical Analysis

Experimental procedures for litter pH, electrical conductivity (EC), and NH4+ were carried out as described by Moore et al. [27, 35]. After NH3 emissions had been measured for 42 d, a 20-g subsample of the litter from each container was placed in a 250-mL polycarbonate centrifuge tube and extracted with 200 mL of deionized water for 2 h on a mechanical shaker, then centrifuged at 3,687 × g for 15 min [41, 42]. Aliquots were taken for pH, EC, and NH4+ determination. Samples for pH and EC were measured immediately in an unfiltered state. Samples for NH4+ were filtered through a 0.45-μm filter and frozen. Ammonium was determined using salicylate-nitroprusside technique with an autoanalyzer according to USEPA method 351.2 [43]. After the water was extracted, the litter was extracted with 1 N KCl at a litter:KCl ratio of 1:10 for 2 h for exchangeable NH4+. After-wards, these samples were centrifuged, filtered, and analyzed for NH4+ as above. An extra sample was taken from each container at the end of each study and analyzed for total C and N using an elemental analyzer [44]. The C:N ratios were also determined.

Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses of the data were determined using the PROC GLM of SAS [45]. Differences between means were evaluated using Fisher’s protected LSD (P < 0.05) using SAS [45].

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

NH3 Volatilization

The average cumulative NH3 volatilization from the untreated litter (controls) during the 42-d incubation period was 30.7 and 21.9 g of N/kg in experiment 1 and experiment 2, respectively (Figures 1A and 1B). Application of 4 and 8 g of alum/100 g of litter resulted in a 77 and 96% reduction in NH3 volatilization, compared with the controls in experiment 1 (Figure 1A), whereas those 2 rates decreased NH3 loss by 90 and 94%, respectively, in the second experiment (Figure 1B). When 4 g of alum/100 g was incorporated in experiment 2, it only decreased emissions by 85% (Figure 1B). These results were consistent with those reported by Moore et al. [27, 37, 46], who found that alum amendments dramatically decreased NH3 volatilization from litter. Likewise, Choi [30] reported that NH3 concentrations for alum were decreased by 87% when compared with control at 42 d. DeLaune et al. [42] indicated that alum decreased NH3 volatilization from composting poultry litter by 76%.

It should be kept in mind that these are laboratory results. In commercial broiler houses with poultry present, additional water and feces are continually being added to the litter. This additional manure not only covers up the chemically treated litter; it also adds extra alkalinity, which titrates the acidity in the litter, causing the pH to increase faster.

Ammonia loss was decreased by 89 and 94%, respectively, when liquid alum was used at rates of 8.66 g and 17.3 g/100 g of litter (Figure 2A). These rates are equivalent to 4 and 8 g of dry alum/100 g of litter. In experiment 2, NH3 volatilization was decreased by 78 and 92%, respectively, with 8.66 and 17.3 g of liquid alum/100 g of litter, respectively.

As mentioned earlier, dry acids, such as alum, have been widely used as litter treatments in the poultry industry. However, as the industry has moved toward nipple drinkers, the moisture content of the litter has decreased. Drier litter has also been observed in poultry houses where the litter is not removed annually. To decrease dust problems and to ensure prompt activation (dissolution) of product, many poultry producers have begun using liquid alum. One of the main objectives of this study was to determine if there was a significant difference in NH3 emissions of poultry litter treated with different forms of alum when applied at the same rate of active ingredient (dry, liquid, or high acid liquid alum). However, cumulative NH3 volatilization over the 6-wk period was not significantly different for the different forms of alum (there was an effect of alum rate on NH3 loss, as would be expected, with greater rates resulting in very low NH3 emissions). These data contrast with research that was conducted in commercial broiler houses, where dry alum was shown to be more effective in decreasing NH3 emissions during a typical 6- or 8-wk flock, compared with liquid alum applied at the same rate of active ingredient [36, 37]. It is unclear why dry alum would be more effective under commercial conditions than in the laboratory, although it may be that the moisture content of litter in the laboratory was lower.

High acid alum applied at 11.2 and 22.4 g/100 g of litter decreased NH3 losses by 95 and 96%, respectively, in experiment 1 and by 92 and 96% in experiment 2 (Figure 3). Reduction in N losses with A7 was not significantly different than from other alum sources.

Application of fly ash slightly increased NH3 volatilization during the 6-wk period in experiment 1 (Figure 4A). Cumulative NH3 volatilization was 14% greater from the 4 g of fly ash/100 g of litter than the controls. These results are not surprising, because the litter pH increased to 8.75 with fly ash (Table 1). Similar findings have been observed for other products by Moore et al. [35], who found that application of Multi-Purpose Litter Treatment at recommended rate and 2#x00D7; recommended rates (10 and 20 g of Multi-Purpose Litter Treatment/kg, respectively) increased NH3 losses compared with the controls. They explained that increasing the litter pH shifted the NH3-NH4+ equilibrium toward NH3, which increased volatilization.

Poultry Guard did not significantly affect NH3 losses in experiment 1 compared with the control; however, in experiment 2, it resulted in an 81% reduction in NH3 losses when applied at 4 g of PG/100 g of litter (Figures 4A and 4B). There are 2 possible reasons for the discrepancy in effectiveness of this product between the studies: (1) the PG material used for experiment 1 had been stored for several years and may have become ineffective (new material was used for experiment 2), and (2) during experiment 2, there was a brief period when the water trap in the experimental setup was allowed to go dry, which may have allowed acid fumes from the acid traps to pass into some of the samples, decreasing NH3 losses (as mentioned earlier). Evidence that this may have occurred is 2-fold; NH3 losses by the controls were almost 30% lower in experiment 2, and the litter pH of the controls is lower (8.0 vs. 8.56) in experiment 2. Likewise, the pH of PG-treated litter was 8.65 for experiment 1 and 7.19 for experiment 2 (Table 1).

Poultry Guard is a clay product that is treated with sulfuric acid [47]. McWard and Taylor [33] indicated that when applied at 112 lb/1,000 ft2 to litter, PG-treated pens resulted in NH3 concentration of about 12 to 20 ppm, compared with 60 to 85 ppm in the untreated pens during the first 28 d.

Poultry Litter Treatment applied at a rate of 4 g/100 g of litter decreased NH3 losses by 76 and 87%, respectively, in experiments 1 and 2, compared with the controls (Figure 4A and 4B). As mentioned earlier, PLT is a mixture of sodium bisulfate and sodium sulfate. Pope and Cherry [31] found that PLT lowered NH3 concentrations by as much 55% over a 2-wk period when applied at 0.24 kg of PLT/m2. Xin et al. [48] observed that NH3 emission during a 7-d period were decreased by 74 to 92% with PLT applied at rates of 0.5 to 1.5 kg/m2. However, the current study contrasts with previous laboratory studies by Moore et al. [27] that showed NH3 losses from PLT-treated litter were not different from control litter. The main difference between this study and that by Moore et al. [27] was the rate of application; Moore et al. [27] had used the suggested rate of the manufacturer of application (2 g of PLT/100 g of litter), whereas the rate was doubled in the current study.

Ammonia volatilization from litter treated with AlCl3·6H2O (4 g of AlCl3/100 g) was decreased by 48 and 92%, respectively, in experiment 1 and 2. As with the PG treatment, we suspect that the improved performance during experiment 2 may have been related to the acid fumes present with the water trap dried out.

Aluminum chloride has been shown to decrease NH3 emissions in both swine manure [29, 49] and poultry litter [30]. Smith et al. [29, 49] suggested that AlCl3·6H2O amendments to swine manure decreased NH3 emission by 2 mechanisms: 1) lowering the manure pH and 2) forming a thick foam on the manure surface, which would act as a physical barrier to NH3 volatilization.

Litter Characteristics

The effect of the various litter amendments on litter characteristics from the 2 experiments are summarized in Table 1. The litter pH varied from 5.82 to 8.75 with various amendments, whereas the untreated control litter had a pH of 8.56 in experiment 1 and 8.00 for experiment 2. Most of the litter amendments (alum, liquid alum, A7, PLT, and AlCl3) resulted in significantly lower litter pH and greater N contents than the controls in both experiment 1 and 2. Poultry Guard (applied at 4 g/100 g) and fly ash (applied at 4 g/100 g) had litter pH and N contents similar to the controls in experiment 1. The greatest N values in experiment 1 were observed with the 8 g of alum treatment (total N and NH4 were 30.6 and 6.3 g of N/kg of litter). In experiment 2, the 22.4 g of A7 treatment resulted in the greatest N values (total N and NH4 were 32 and 6.8 g of N/kg, respectively). The lowest total N contents of the treated litter samples were from the fly ash and PG treatments in experiment 1 and the PG-treated litter in experiment 2.

Electrical conductivity in litter ranged from 7.78 to 15.47 mS/cm and tended to be increased by various litter amendments. Moore et al. [46] reported that the alum-treated litter had a greater EC than normal litter (10.8 vs. 6.6 mS/cm); the increased EC would be associated with sulfate salts, such as NH4+, Ca, and potassium sulfate.

The C:N ratios tended to be lower in litter treated with aluminum compounds than untreated litter (Table 1). This was mainly due to increased N levels, because few differences existed in total C. Recently, Cook et al. [50] suggested that alum additions to poultry litter decrease N losses through 2 mechanisms: 1 biological and 1 chemical. The chemical mechanism is simply the conversion of NH3 to NH4+. The biological mechanism they postulated was an inhibition of ureolytic microorganisms. They found that bacterial urease producers were decreased by 90% within 4 wk of alum treatment, whereas fungal populations increased by 3 orders of magnitude [50].

CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS

  1. Litter amendments that significantly decreased litter pH resulted in the greatest reduction in NH3 emissions and the greatest litter N contents.

  2. Although dry alum outperforms liquid alum in field studies, there were no significant differences found in this study due to the type of alum utilized, when comparing NH3 loss or final litter pH.

  3. Compounds that did not decrease litter pH (fly ash, PG in experiment 1) had little or no effect on decreasing NH3 emissions.

Table 1

Effect of various amendments on litter characteristics after 42 d

 Experiment 1  Experiment 2 
Treatment pH Electrical conductivity (mS/cm) Total N (g/kg) NH41 (g/kg) Total C (%) C:N Treatment pH Electrical conductivity (mS/cm) Total N (g/kg) NH4 (g/kg) Total C (%) C:N 
a–hMeans within the same column with no common superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05). 
1Sum of water-soluble and exchangeable NH4-N. 
2Alum = Al2(SO4)3·14H2O. 
3A7 = high acid alum. 
4PG = Poultry Guard. 
5PLT = Poultry Litter Treatment. 
Control 8.56b 8.08f 24.2ef 1.3e 25.4a 10.5a Control 8.00a 9.60e 28.2cd 2.3d 26.1 9.4ab 
4 g of alum2/100 g 7.70de 10.70e 26.6cde 4.9bc 23.3ab 8.7b 4 g of alum/100 g 7.36b 12.34cd 34.3a 5.8bc 26.1 7.6d 
8 g of alum/100 g 6.98g 12.58b 30.6a 6.3a 24.0a 7.9c 4 g of alum (mixed)/100 g 7.28bc 11.31d 33.1a 5.2c 25.4 7.7d 
8.66 g of liquid alum/100 g 7.58ef 10.95de 27.6bcd 2.7d 21.7bc 7.8c 8 g of alum/100 g 6.87ef 13.60bc 33.1a 6.3ab 24.1 7.3d 
17.3 g of liquid alum/100 g 6.84g 13.08b 30.3ab 6.2a 21.1c 6.9d 8.66 g of liquid alum/100 g 7.25bc 12.54cd 32.6ab 6.3ab 26.3 8.1cd 
11.2 g of A73/100 g 7.47f 11.89c 28.5abcd 5.1b 20.0c 7.0d 17.3 g of liquid alum/100 g 6.77f 14.31ab 32.3ab 7.1a 25.0 7.7cd 
22.4 g of A7/100 g 6.54h 14.09a 29.6abc 6.5a 20.9c 7.0d 11.2 g of A7/100 g 6.97def 12.46cd 33.5a 6.3ab 25.7 7.7d 
4 g of PG4/100 g 8.65ab 7.78f 23.8f 1.6e 23.9a 10.1a 22.4 g of A7/100 g 5.82g 15.47a 32.0ab 6.8a 24.5 7.7d 
4 g of PLT5/100 g 7.80d 13.00b 26.1def 4.7bc 23.7ab 9.1b 4 g of PG/100 g 7.19bc 12.07d 26.1d 5.6bc 24.3 9.5a 
4 g of fly ash/100 g 8.755 8.04f 24.6ef 1.0e 25.2a 10.3a 4 g of PLT/100 g 7.07cde 14.55ab 29.2bcd 5.9bc 24.9 8.6bc 
4 g of AlCl3/100 g 7.98c 11.36cd 28.2abcd 4.3c 24.3a 8.7b 4 g of AlCl3/100 g 7.18bcd 13.57bc 31.7abc 5.9bc 24.8 7.8cd 
LSD (0.05) 0.18 0.62 2.38 0.80 2.21 0.65 LSD (0.05) 0.22 1.31 3.82 0.87 1.47 0.90 
 Experiment 1  Experiment 2 
Treatment pH Electrical conductivity (mS/cm) Total N (g/kg) NH41 (g/kg) Total C (%) C:N Treatment pH Electrical conductivity (mS/cm) Total N (g/kg) NH4 (g/kg) Total C (%) C:N 
a–hMeans within the same column with no common superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05). 
1Sum of water-soluble and exchangeable NH4-N. 
2Alum = Al2(SO4)3·14H2O. 
3A7 = high acid alum. 
4PG = Poultry Guard. 
5PLT = Poultry Litter Treatment. 
Control 8.56b 8.08f 24.2ef 1.3e 25.4a 10.5a Control 8.00a 9.60e 28.2cd 2.3d 26.1 9.4ab 
4 g of alum2/100 g 7.70de 10.70e 26.6cde 4.9bc 23.3ab 8.7b 4 g of alum/100 g 7.36b 12.34cd 34.3a 5.8bc 26.1 7.6d 
8 g of alum/100 g 6.98g 12.58b 30.6a 6.3a 24.0a 7.9c 4 g of alum (mixed)/100 g 7.28bc 11.31d 33.1a 5.2c 25.4 7.7d 
8.66 g of liquid alum/100 g 7.58ef 10.95de 27.6bcd 2.7d 21.7bc 7.8c 8 g of alum/100 g 6.87ef 13.60bc 33.1a 6.3ab 24.1 7.3d 
17.3 g of liquid alum/100 g 6.84g 13.08b 30.3ab 6.2a 21.1c 6.9d 8.66 g of liquid alum/100 g 7.25bc 12.54cd 32.6ab 6.3ab 26.3 8.1cd 
11.2 g of A73/100 g 7.47f 11.89c 28.5abcd 5.1b 20.0c 7.0d 17.3 g of liquid alum/100 g 6.77f 14.31ab 32.3ab 7.1a 25.0 7.7cd 
22.4 g of A7/100 g 6.54h 14.09a 29.6abc 6.5a 20.9c 7.0d 11.2 g of A7/100 g 6.97def 12.46cd 33.5a 6.3ab 25.7 7.7d 
4 g of PG4/100 g 8.65ab 7.78f 23.8f 1.6e 23.9a 10.1a 22.4 g of A7/100 g 5.82g 15.47a 32.0ab 6.8a 24.5 7.7d 
4 g of PLT5/100 g 7.80d 13.00b 26.1def 4.7bc 23.7ab 9.1b 4 g of PG/100 g 7.19bc 12.07d 26.1d 5.6bc 24.3 9.5a 
4 g of fly ash/100 g 8.755 8.04f 24.6ef 1.0e 25.2a 10.3a 4 g of PLT/100 g 7.07cde 14.55ab 29.2bcd 5.9bc 24.9 8.6bc 
4 g of AlCl3/100 g 7.98c 11.36cd 28.2abcd 4.3c 24.3a 8.7b 4 g of AlCl3/100 g 7.18bcd 13.57bc 31.7abc 5.9bc 24.8 7.8cd 
LSD (0.05) 0.18 0.62 2.38 0.80 2.21 0.65 LSD (0.05) 0.22 1.31 3.82 0.87 1.47 0.90 
Figure 1

Cumulative ammonia volatilization from poultry litter with and without aluminum sulfate amendments as a function of time {experiment 1 [LSD (0.05) at 42 d = 1.70] and 2 [LSD (0.05) at 42 d = 0.97]}.

Figure 1

Cumulative ammonia volatilization from poultry litter with and without aluminum sulfate amendments as a function of time {experiment 1 [LSD (0.05) at 42 d = 1.70] and 2 [LSD (0.05) at 42 d = 0.97]}.

Figure 2

Cumulative ammonia volatilization from poultry litter with and without liquid aluminum sulfate amendments as a function of time {experiment 1 [LSD (0.05) at 42 d = 1.70] and 2 [LSD (0.05) at 42 d = 0.97]}.

Figure 2

Cumulative ammonia volatilization from poultry litter with and without liquid aluminum sulfate amendments as a function of time {experiment 1 [LSD (0.05) at 42 d = 1.70] and 2 [LSD (0.05) at 42 d = 0.97]}.

Figure 3

Cumulative ammonia volatilization from poultry litter with and without high acid aluminum sulfate amendments (A7) as a function of time {experiment 1 [LSD (0.05) at 42 d = 1.70] and 2 [LSD (0.05) at 42 d = 0.97]}.

Figure 3

Cumulative ammonia volatilization from poultry litter with and without high acid aluminum sulfate amendments (A7) as a function of time {experiment 1 [LSD (0.05) at 42 d = 1.70] and 2 [LSD (0.05) at 42 d = 0.97]}.

Figure 4

Cumulative ammonia volatilization from poultry litter with and without various litter amendments as a function of time {experiment 1 [LSD (0.05) at 42 d = 1.70] and 2 [LSD (0.05) at 42 d = 0.97]}. PG = Poultry Guard; PLT = Poultry Litter Treatment.

Figure 4

Cumulative ammonia volatilization from poultry litter with and without various litter amendments as a function of time {experiment 1 [LSD (0.05) at 42 d = 1.70] and 2 [LSD (0.05) at 42 d = 0.97]}. PG = Poultry Guard; PLT = Poultry Litter Treatment.

1
Mention of a trade name, proprietary product, or specific equipment does not constitute a guarantee or warranty by the USDA and does not imply its approval to the exclusion of other products that may be suitable.

We would like to thank David Horlick and Jerry Martin, USDA, Agricultural Research Service, and Suzanne Horlick and Scott Becton, University of Arkansas, for laboratory assistance. This work was supported by the Korea Research Foundation Grant funded by the Korean Government (MOEHRD; KRF-2005-214-F00044).

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1
Fontenot
,
J. P.
, L. W. Smith, and A. L. Sutton.
1983
. Alternative utilization of animal wastes.
J. Anim. Sci.
 
57
(Suppl. 2):
221
–233.
2
Sutton
,
A. L.
, S. R. Nichols, D. D. Jones, D. T. Kelly, and A. B. Scheidt.
1987
. Survey of seasonal atmosphere change in confinement farrowing houses. Pages 106–107 in Proceedings of the 2nd Seminar Technical Selection CIGR. Latest Developments in Livestock Housing. Auburn University, Auburn, AL.
3
Groot Koerkamp
,
P. W. G.
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
–87.
4
McCrory
,
D. F.
, and P. J. Hobbs.
2001
. Additives to reduce ammonia and odor emissions from livestock wastes: A review.
J. Environ. Qual.
 
30
:
345
–355.
5
Vogels
,
G. D.
, and C. Van der Drift.
1976
. Degradation of purines and pyrimidines by microorganisms.
Bacteriol. Rev.
 
40
:
403
–468.
6
Wilson
,
M. G.
2000
. Technologies for ammonia control in poultry facilities. Pages 241–247 in Proceedings of 2000 National Poultry Waste Management Symposium, Ocean City, MD. Auburn University, Auburn, AL.
7
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
1998
. Research strategy for hog manure management in Canada. Multidisciplinary task force final report on the effect of hog production on the environment. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Pest Management Research Centre, London, Ontario, Canada.
8
Reece
,
F. N.
, B. D. Lott, and J. W. Deaton.
1980
. Ammonia in the atmosphere during brooding affects performance of broiler chickens.
Poult. Sci.
 
59
:
486
–488.
9
Caveny
,
D. D.
, C. L. Quarles, and G. A. Greathouse.
1981
. Atmospheric ammonia and broiler cockerel performance.
Poult. Sci.
 
60
:
513
–516.
10
Deaton
,
J. W.
, F. N. Reece, and B. D. Lott.
1984
. Effect of atmospheric ammonia on pullets at point of lay.
Poult. Sci.
 
63
:
384
–385.
11
Elliott
,
H. A.
, and N. E. Collins.
1982
. Factors affecting ammonia release in broiler houses.
Trans. ASAE
 
25
:
413
–418.
12
AL-Homidan
,
A.
, J. F. Robertson, and A. M. Petchey.
1997
. The effect of temperature, litter and light density on ammonia and dust production and broiler performance.
Br. Poult. Sci.
 
38
:
S5
–S7.
13
AL-Homidan
,
A.
, J. F. Robertson, and A. M. Petchey.
1998
. The effect of environmental factors on ammonia and dust production and broiler performance.
Br. Poult. Sci.
 
39
:
S9
–S10.
14
Reece
,
F. N.
, B. J. Bates, and B. D. Lott.
1979
. Ammonia control in broiler houses.
Poult. Sci.
 
58
:
754
–755.
15
Carr
,
L. E.
, F. W. Wheaton, and L. W. Douglass.
1990
. Empirical models to determine ammonia concentrations from broiler chicken litter.
Trans. ASAE
 
33
:
260
–265.
16
van Breemen
,
N.
, P. A. Burrough, E. J. Velthorst, H. F. van Dobben, T. de Wit, T. B. Ridder, and H. F. R. Reijinders.
1982
. Soil acidification from atmospheric ammonium sulphate in forest canopy throughfall.
Nature
 
299
:
548
–550.
17
Schroder
,
H.
1985
. Nitrogen losses from Danish agriculture-trends and consequences.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
 
14
:
279
–289.
18
Dillon
,
P. J.
, and L. A. Molot.
1989
. The role of ammonium and nitrate retention in the acidification of lakes and forested catchments. Pages 1–25 in The Role of Nitrogen in the Acidification of Soils and Surface Waters. J. L. Malanchuk and J. Nilsson, ed. Appendix A. Kobenhavn, Denmark: Miljorapport 10, Nordic Council of Ministers.
19
Goss
,
M.
, J. R. Ogilvie, E. G. Beauchamp, D. P. Stonehouse, M. H. Miller, and K. Parris.
1994
. Current state of the art on manure/nutrient management. COESA report. RES MAN-001. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Pest Management Research Centre, London, Ontario, Canada.
20
ApSimon
,
H. M.
, M. Kruse, and J. N. B. Bell.
1987
. Ammonia emissions and their role in acid deposition.
Atmos. Environ.
 
21
:
1939
–1946.
21
Sutton
,
M. A.
, C. J. Place, M. Eager, D. Fowler, and R. I. Smith.
1995
. Assessment of the magnitude of ammonia emissions in the United Kingdom.
Atmos. Environ.
 
29
:
1393
–1411.
22
Ferguson
,
N. S.
, R. S. Gates, J. L. Taraba, A. H. Cantor, A. J. Pescatore, M. J. Ford, and D. G. Burnham.
1998
. The effect of dietary crude protein on growth, ammonia concentration, and litter composition in broiler.
Poult. Sci.
 
77
:
1481
–1487.
23
Rotz
,
C. A.
2004
. Management to reduce nitrogen losses in animal production.
J. Anim. Sci.
 
82
(E. Suppl.):
E119
–E137.
24
Choi
,
I. H.
, and K. H. Nahm.
2005
. Recent studies on protecting the environmental pollutants from animal houses.
TALS
 
3
:
8
–18.
25
Patterson
,
P. H.
, and Adrizal.
2005
. Management strategies to reduce air emissions: Emphasis—dust and ammonia.
J. Appl. Poult. Res.
 
14
:
638
–650.
26
Ullman
,
J. L.
2005
. Remedial activities to reduce atmospheric pollutants from animal feeding operations. Agricultural Engineering International: The CIGR Ejournal. Invited Overview Paper No. 9. Vol.VII June.
27
Moore
,
P. A
. Jr., T. C. Daniel, D. R. Edwards, and D. M. Miller.
1996
. Evaluation of chemical amendments to reduce ammonia volatilization from poultry litter.
Poult. Sci.
 
75
:
315
–320.
28
Moore
,
P. A
. Jr., T. C. Daniel, and D. R. Edwards.
1999
. Reducing phosphorus runoff and improving poultry production with alum.
Poult. Sci.
 
78
:
692
–698.
29
Smith
,
D. R.
, P. A. Moore Jr., B. E. Haggard, C. V. Maxwell, T. C. Daniel, K. VanDevander, and M. E. Davis.
2004
. Effect of aluminum chloride and dietary phytase on relative ammonia losses from swine manure.
J. Anim. Sci.
 
82
:
605
–611.
30
Choi
,
I. H.
2004
. A study on reducing the environmental pollutants from animal feces and urine. PhD Thesis. Taegu University, Gyong San, South Korea.
31
Pope
,
M. J.
, and T. E. Cherry.
2000
. An evaluation of the presence of pathogens on broilers raised on Poultry Litter Treatment-treated litter.
Poult. Sci.
 
79
:
1351
–1355.
32
Blake
,
J. P
. and J. B. Hess.
2001
. Sodium bisulfate (PLT) as a litter amendment. ACES Publications. ANR-1208. Alabama A&M, Normal, and Auburn University, AL.
33
McWard
,
G. W.
, and D. R. Taylor.
2000
. Acidified clay litter amendment.
J. Appl. Poult. Res.
 
9
:
518
–529.
34
Carlile
,
F. S.
1984
. Ammonia in poultry houses: A literature review.
Worlds Poult. Sci. J.
 
40
:
99
–113.
35
Moore
,
P. A
. Jr., T. C. Daniel, D. R. Edwards, and D. M. Miller.
1995
. Effect of chemical amendments on ammonia volatilization from poultry litter.
J. Environ. Qual.
 
24
:
294
–300.
36
Moore
,
P. A.
, Jr., D. M. Miles, R. T. Burns, D. H. Pote, and W. K. Berg.
2007
. Management options for reducing ammonia emissions from poultry litter. Pages 167–168 in Ammonia Emissions in Agriculture. G. Monteny and E. Hartung, ed. Wageneginen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
37
Moore
,
P. A.
, Jr., D. M. Miles, R. T. Burns, D. H. Pote, and W. K. Berg.
2008
. Evaluation of ammonia emissions from broiler litter. ILES VIII Animal and the Environment Symposium, Foz do Iquazu, Brazil. (In press)
38
General Chemical Corporation, Parsippany, NJ.
39
Poultry Guard (PG), Oil Dri Corporation of America, Chicago, IL.
40
PLT, Jones-Hamilton, Walbridge, OH.
41
Self-Davis
,
M. L.
, and P. A. Moore Jr.
2000
. Determining water-soluble phosphorus in animal manure. Pages 74–76 in Methods of Phosphorus Analysis for Soil, Sediments, Residuals, and Waters. G. M. Pierzynski, ed. Southern Coop. Ser. Bull. 396. North Carolina University, Raleigh.
42
DeLaune
,
P. B.
, P. A. Moore Jr., and J. L. Lemunyon.
2004
. Effect of chemical and microbial amendments on ammonia volatilization from composting poultry litter.
J. Environ. Qual.
 
33
:
728
–734.
43
USEPA.
1979
. Methods for chemical analysis of water and wastes. USEPA Rep. 600/4-79-020). USEPA, EMSL, Cincinnati, OH.
44
Vario Max
CN
Hanau, Germany.
45
SAS Institute.
1990
. SAS/STAT User’s Guide. Version 6. 4th ed. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
46
Moore
,
P. A
. Jr., T. C. Daniel, and D. R. Edwards.
2000
. Reducing phosphorus runoff and inhibiting ammonia loss from poultry manure with aluminum sulfate.
J. Environ. Qual.
 
29
:
37
–49.
47
Blake
,
J. P.
, and J. B. Hess.
2001
. Poultry Guard™ as a litter amendment. ACES Publications. ANR-1209. Alabama A&M, Normal, and Auburn University, Auburn, AL.
48
Xin
,
H.
, H. Li, and R. T. Burns.
2006
. Strategies to reduce air emission in layer facilities. Pages 113–123 in Proceedings of 2006 National Poultry Waste Management Symposium, Springdale, AR. Auburn University, Auburn, AL.
49
Smith
,
D. R.
, P. A. Moore Jr., C. V. Maxwell, and T. C. Daniel.
2001
. Dietary phytase and aluminum chloride manure amendments to reduce phosphorus and ammonia volatilization from swine manure. Proc. 2001 Int. Symp. G. B. Havenstein, ed. North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
50
Cook
,
K. L.
, M. J. Rothrock Jr., J. G. Warren, K. Sistani, and P. A. Moore Jr.
2008
. Effect of alum treatment on the concentration of total and ureolytic microorganisms in poultry litter.
J. Environ. Qual.
 
37
:
2360
–2367.