2 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- ItemAmmonia and greenhouse gas emissions from slurry storage : A review(Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2020) Kupper, Thomas; Häni, Christoph; Neftel, Albrecht; Kincaid, Chris; Bühler, Marcel; Amon, Barbara; VanderZaag, AndrewStorage of slurry is an important emission source for ammonia (NH3), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) from livestock production. Therefore, this study collected published emission data from stored cattle and pig slurry to determine baseline emission values and emission changes due to slurry treatment and coverage of stores. Emission data were collected from 120 papers yielding 711 records of measurements conducted at farm-, pilot- and laboratory-scale. The emission data reported in a multitude of units were standardized and compiled in a database. Descriptive statistics of the data from untreated slurry stored uncovered revealed a large variability in emissions for all gases. To determine baseline emissions, average values based on a weighting of the emission data according to the season and the duration of the emission measurements were constructed using the data from farm-scale and pilot-scale studies. Baseline emissions for cattle and pig slurry stored uncovered were calculated. When possible, it was further distinguished between storage in tanks without slurry treatment and storage in lagoons which implies solid-liquid separation and biological treatment. The baseline emissions on an area or volume basis are: for NH3: 0.12 g m−2 h-1 and 0.15 g m−2 h-1 for cattle and pig slurry stored in lagoons, and 0.08 g m−2 h-1 and 0.24 g m−2 h-1 for cattle and pig slurry stored in tanks; for N2O: 0.0003 g m−2 h-1 for cattle slurry stored in lagoons, and 0.002 g m−2 h-1 for both slurry types stored in tanks; for CH4: 0.95 g m-3 h-1 and 3.5 g m-3 h-1 for cattle and pig slurry stored in lagoons, and 0.58 g m-3 h-1 and 0.68 g m-3 h-1 for cattle and pig slurry stored in tanks; for CO2: 6.6 g m−2 h-1 and 0.3 g m−2 h-1 for cattle and pig slurry stored in lagoons, and 8.0 g m−2 h-1 for both slurry types stored in tanks; for H2S: 0.04 g m−2 h-1 and 0.01 g m−2 h-1 for cattle and pig slurry stored in lagoons. Related to total ammoniacal nitrogen (TAN), baseline emissions for tanks are 16% and 15% of TAN for cattle and pig slurry, respectively. Emissions of N2O and CH4 relative to nitrogen (N) and volatile solids (VS) are 0.13% of N and 0.10% of N and 2.9% of VS and 4.7% of VS for cattle and pig slurry, respectively. Total greenhouse gas emissions from slurry stores are dominated by CH4. The records on slurry treatment using acidification show a reduction of NH3 and CH4 emissions during storage while an increase occurs for N2O and a minor change for CO2 as compared to untreated slurry. Solid-liquid separation causes higher losses for NH3 and a reduction in CH4, N2O and CO2 emissions. Anaerobically digested slurry shows higher emissions during storage for NH3 while losses tend to be lower for CH4 and little changes occur for N2O and CO2 compared to untreated slurry. All cover types are found to be efficient for emission mitigation of NH3 from stores. The N2O emissions increase in many cases due to coverage. Lower CH4 emissions occur for impermeable covers as compared to uncovered slurry storage while for permeable covers the effect is unclear or emissions tend to increase. Limited and inconsistent data regarding emission changes with covering stores are available for CO2 and H2S. The compiled data provide a basis for improving emission inventories and highlight the need for further research to reduce uncertainty and fill data gaps regarding emissions from slurry storage.
- ItemCFD modelling of an animal occupied zone using an anisotropic porous medium model with velocity depended resistance parameters(Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2021) Doumbia, E. Moustapha; Janke, David; Yi, Qianying; Amon, Thomas; Kriegel, Martin; Hempel, SabrinaThe airflow in dairy barns is affected by many factors, such as the barn’s geometry, weather conditions, configurations of the openings, cows acting as heat sources, flow obstacles, etc. Computational fluids dynamics (CFD) has the advantages of providing detailed airflow information and allowing fully-controlled boundary conditions, and therefore is widely used in livestock building research. However, due to the limited computing power, numerous animals are difficult to be designed in detail. Consequently, there is the need to develop and use smart numerical models in order to reduce the computing power needed while at the same time keeping a comparable level of accuracy. In this work the porous medium modeling is considered to solve this problem using Ansys Fluent. A comparison between an animal occupied zone (AOZ) filled with randomly arranged 22 simplified cows’ geometry model (CM) and the porous medium model (PMM) of it, was made. Anisotropic behavior of the PMM was implemented in the porous modeling to account for turbulence influences. The velocity at the inlet of the domain has been varied from 0.1 m s−1 to 3 m s−1 and the temperature difference between the animals and the incoming air was set at 20 K. Leading to Richardson numbers Ri corresponding to the three types of heat transfer convection, i.e. natural, mixed and forced convection. It has been found that the difference between two models (the cow geometry model and the PMM) was around 2% for the pressure drop and less than 6% for the convective heat transfer. Further the usefulness of parametrized PMM with a velocity adaptive pressure drop and heat transfer coefficient is shown by velocity field validation of an on-farm measurement.