首页> 外文OA文献 >Air/Odor Control Technology Used By Iowa Pork Producers
【2h】

Air/Odor Control Technology Used By Iowa Pork Producers

机译:爱荷华州猪肉生产商使用的空气/气味控制技术

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

An issue that has received attention in the livestock industry is that of air quality/odor. An Iowa pork producer survey showed that about two-thirds of the respondents felt air quality/odor was an issue that needed evaluation. This report is aimed at developing a baseline of air quality/odor control measures currently in use by Iowa pork producers. Information is obtained on use of selected odor control technologies and user level of satisfaction. Two survey methods were utilized; a mail survey and a telephone survey. The telephone survey followed the mail survey and was used to test the representativeness of the mail survey respondents and obtain information on why selected odor control technologies were not used.Level of use and level of satisfaction with selected odor control methods varied. A deep pit was used by 77 percent of the respondents. About seven-in-ten injected manure. About half of the respondents immediately incorporated manure. One-half composted pig mortalities. About four-in-ten had a windbreak, used manure additives, and/or had a bedded system somewhere in the production system. Level of satisfaction was high for windbreaks, bedded systems, bio-covers, deep pits, composting pigs/manure, and incorporating manure. Satisfaction was low for bio-filters, ozone, manure storage plastic covers, and manure additives. Reasons why odor control technologies were not used varied. A dominant reason was that the technology was not applicable to the production facility. For example, a biocover, plastic cover, etc. would not be applicable for a deep pit manure storage system. Another response for nonadoption of some technologies was that odors are managed sufficiently already. This was related to the response for building odors. About one-third of the respondents indicated they did not use selected building odor control technologies because they were too expensive and/or they were not familiar with the technology. Responses for not using modified diets and/or manure additives included too expensive, not effective for odor control, and not familiar with the technology.This survey shows that swine producers are using a wide variety of techniques to minimize off-site odor and air quality effects. The most common type of manure storage used is deep pits (68 percent of producers) followed by solid manure systems (20 percent). While a large number of technologies are available, none provides a perfect solution to air quality.
机译:畜牧业已引起关注的一个问题是空气质量/气味。爱荷华州猪肉生产商的一项调查显示,大约三分之二的受访者认为空气质量/气味是需要评估的问题。该报告旨在制定爱荷华州猪肉生产商目前正在使用的空气质量/气味控制措施的基准。获得有关所选气味控制技术的使用和用户满意度的信息。使用了两种调查方法;邮件调查和电话调查。电话调查是在邮件调查之后进行的,用于测试邮件调查受访者的代表性并获得有关为何未使用所选气味控制技术的信息。使用水平和对所选气味控制方法的满意度各不相同。 77%的受访者使用了深坑。大约七分之十的粪便注入。大约一半的受访者立即将粪便纳入肥料。一半的堆肥猪死亡率。大约四分之四的人有防风衣,用过的肥料添加剂和/或生产系统中某处有床状系统。防风,分层系统,生物覆盖物,深坑,堆肥猪/粪肥和粪便的满意度很高。对生物滤池,臭氧,粪便存储塑料盖和粪便添加剂的满意度很低。不使用气味控制技术的原因多种多样。主要原因是该技术不适用于生产设施。例如,生物覆盖物,塑料覆盖物等不适用于深坑粪便存储系统。对于不采用某些技术的另一个回应是,气味已经得到充分管理。这与建筑异味的反应有关。约三分之一的受访者表示,他们没有使用选定的建筑气味控制技术,因为它们太昂贵和/或对技术不熟悉。不使用改良饮食和/或粪便添加剂的回应包括价格过高,对气味的控制效果不佳以及对该技术不熟悉。该调查表明,养猪生产者正在使用各种各样的技术来减少异味和空气质量效果。最常用的粪便存储类型是深坑(占生产者的68%),其次是固体粪便系统(占20%)。尽管有大量技术可用,但没有一种技术可以提供理想的空气质量解决方案。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号