Manure Pit Foaming in Deep Pit Pig Finishing Barns

Presented at:

NPB’s In-service training, Atlanta, Georgia Oct 2, 2013

Larry Jacobson and Chuck ClantonDept. of Bioproducts & Biosystems Engineering

University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN

Foam Coming Through Slats

4 feet of foam

Foam above the slats!

Slides courtesy Dave Preisler, MPB

Foam Coming out of Pumpout

History of Manure Pit Foaming

• Reports of manure pit foaming started 4 to 5 years ago

• During 2009 rash of barn explosions and/or flash fires in Midwest

• Pit foaming related to these explosions/fire

Barn Explosion (fall, 2009) in same barn

Flash Fire (MN barn)

Iowa Barn Explosion – mid-Sept 2011

Worker fatality and1500 pigs lost

Common Foaming Situations

• Can occur in one pit or barn but not in others on the same farm

• Becomes a problem over time (1-2 years)although once established can be very fast growing

Foaming Facts & Theories• Reduces manure storage volume• Pigs get dirty• Foam captures methane . . . Methane is

flammable• General Explanation-

–Microbial imbalance in manure pit probably related to diet, water source, climate, and other factors!!

Danger of Foam Disruption

Short Term Solution:MPB & MAES Funding at U of MN

• Reducing pit foaming with addition of sodium monensin (Rumensin™) or poloxalene (Bloat Guard™) – Chuck Clanton – lead PI

• Microbial analysis of foaming swine manure to improve deep-pitted swine barn safety – Bo Hu – lead PI

Foaming issue

• Borrowed from beef production

• Rumensin– Alters biochemistry pathway in rumen

• Increased fatty acids• Decreased methane

• Bloat Guard– Reduces frothy bloat in grazing cattle

Experimental procedure

• Typical grow-finish buildings– 1000-1200 pig capacity– Single or double wide barn layout– 8-ft deep pits– Same or close sites / same producer

Experimental procedure

• Typical grow-finish buildings

• Rumenin-90– 0 lb / 100,000 gallons (control)– 2.5– 5.0– 10.0

Experimental procedure

• Typical grow-finish buildings

• Rumenin-90

• Bloat Guard– Rumensin-90 (control)– 60 lb / 100,000 gallons– 100 lb

Bottom line

• Rumensin-90– 5 lb / 100,000 gallons

• Lower rate may – Take additional material – Longer period

– About 10-14 days to see response

• Bloat Guard– Not recommended

Long Term Solutions

• Microbial community analysis

• Lab foaming simulation and foaming capability analysis

• Study of different manure components on foaming

Microbial Analysis

• Microscopic picture of manure. Red arrows point to fibers or filamentous bacteria.

• Based on work with waste water treatment, filamentous/actinomycete species might be the cause of manure foaming in swine facilities

Microbial Community Analysis

• Illumina-pyrosequencing analysis showed that no differences were found on the population of actinobacteria from 44 manure samples

• Analysis did show a difference between the foaming manure and non-foaming manure samples on the population of Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes and Proteobacteria.

Foaming Index Development

• Stable foams need three components: a gas, a surfactant and a foam stabilizer (hydrophobic particles such as fine fibers and filamentous bacteria)

• A volumetric cylinder used to develop a simulation test to evaluated the foaming capacity of a given manure sample, i.e. Foaming Index (FI)

Different Components on Foaming

• Adding corn oil to the foaming manure immediately dropped the FI reading of the manure to almost zero.

• Other supplements, such as DDGS & yeast extract, to the foaming manure, however, did not affect the FI

FI of manure at the time of adding supplements, A: digested manure, B: raw foaming manure.

Corn Oil impact on Foaming

• Dramatic increase in FI when manure samples with corn oil addition were stored for 4 weeks compared to other additives like yeast, DDGS, and VFAs

Digested Oil (LCFA)

• Corn oil is broken down into glycerol and LCFA (oleic acid) by pigs after ingested.

• Non-foaming manure was quickly converted to foaming manure (FI) when Oleic acid was present.

LCFA vs DDGS response

• FI reading of non-foaming manure jumped to more than 80 ml immediately after addition of free LCFA

• Remained non-foaming initially with addition of DDGS, then converted to foaming manure after 2 weeks of storage

Long chain free fatty acid analysis of manure samples, mg/L

Conclusions

• No commonality found in incidence of foaming and/or explosions/flash fires events such as building type or age, feeder or waterer style, manure characteristics, pit additives, feed waste, genetics, diet, or management.

• Short term solution - addition of monensin (Rumensin® 90) directly into the pit at a rate of 5 lb per 100,000 gallons of manure.

Conclusions

• Potential causes of foaming include:– Increase in fatty acids in the manure of pigs fed diets

with DDGS and/or other by-products –surfactant

– higher levels of dietary fiber which would serve as a foam stabilizer

– higher dietary fiber excreted is a significant factor for biogas formation

For a full list of references cited in this presentation, please visit:

www.animalagclimatechange.org

This project was supported by Agricultural and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant No. 2011-67003-

30206 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

USDA-AFRI-Funded Project

• University of Nebraska and five partners– Washington State University– Texas A&M System– University of Georgia– Cornell University– University of Minnesota

• 5 year project (2011-2016)

• Extension-focused ‘capacity-building’ projectFrom Stowell, 2011 ASABE poster

Climate Change Team

WSU PI: Joe HarrisonWashington State Univ.

Western U.S.

WSU

TAMU PI: Saqib MukhtarTexas A&M University

Southwestern U.S.

TAMU

U-MN PI: Larry JacobsonUniv. of Minnesota

Midwest

U-MN

UGA UGA PI: Mark RisseUniversity of Georgia

Southeastern U.S.

Cornell

Cornell PI: Curt GoochCornell University

Northeast

LPELC

LPELC PI: Rick StowellUniversity of NebraskaClimate Change Team

WSU PI: Joe HarrisonWashington State Univ.

Western U.S.

WSU

TAMU PI: Saqib MukhtarTexas A&M University

Southwestern U.S.

TAMU

U-MN PI: Larry JacobsonUniv. of Minnesota

Midwest

U-MN

UGA UGA PI: Mark RisseUniversity of Georgia

Southeastern U.S.

Cornell

Cornell PI: Curt GoochCornell University

Northeast

LPELC

LPELC PI: Rick StowellUniversity of NebraskaClimate Change Team

From Stowell, 2011 ASABE poster

http://www.extension.org/pages/60702/animal-agriculture-and-climate-change#.UkscLT_3O5I

Farmers are Asking

• How has the climate been changing and what climate can we expect in the future?

• What are the climate impacts on animal agriculture?

• How should farmers respond?• What is the role of animal agriculture in

changing the climate?• What will be the impact of carbon

regulations and carbon markets on animal agriculture?

Online Course

• 7 Lessons

• 15 hours

• No travel time

• Certificate of Completion

University of Minnesota Manure Management and Air Quality www.manure.umn.edu/applied/foam

Questions?