The Professional Animal Scientist 25 (2009):786-7932009 American Registry of Professional Animal Scientists

#orCASE STUDY: Seasonal and

Spatial Distribution of AmbientAmmonia ConcentrationsMeasured at a LargeOpen-Lot DairyA. B. Leytem, 1 R. S. Dungan, and D. L. Bjorneberg

Northwest Irrigation and Soils Research Laboratory, USDA-ARS, Kimberly, ID 83341

ABSTRACTThe volatilization of NH, from dairy

production facilities is not only a lossof valuable N. but also an air, qualityconcern because NIL, plays a. role in theformation of airborne particulate mat-ter, which can be a health hazard. Theambient NH concentrations over severalseasons at 3 locations (open lots, compostyard. lagoon) throughout a large open-lot dairy were determined, as well asthe spatial distribution of NH over theopen-lot area. There was a significantmain effect of location (P < 0.0001).which followed the trend of lot > lagoon= compost > background, with averagesof 0.58. 0.33, 0.30. and 0.04 mg NH/m, respectively. The effect of weatherand lot conditions on the spatial distribu-tion of NH, across the lots was evident,with lower concentrations and less spatialvariability in winter months when thelots were frozen compared with wetterwarmer months. Lower NH, concentra-lions and less spatial variability werealso measured when manure stockpileswere removed from, the open lots and the

Corresponding author: april.leytemars.usda.gov

lots were dry. Significantly greater NIl,concentrations were generated in thelot area versus the compost and lagoonareas, which were riots igiofmcuntiy diJferent. Because the lots are greater insize by a factor of approximately 6. itis evident that NH, emissions from thissector of the dairy contribute the giruiesiamount of NH, to the atmosphere.

I(cy words: auiinoiiia. confined via-real feding operation. (laii'V. emissiolparticulate matter

INTRODUCTIONIntensification of animal production

has led to larger confined animal-feeding operations. resulting in thecreation of large and cut icut itrat idNH sources. In the United States,manure from livestock operations ac-counts for the majority of the. anthro-pogenic sources of NH. emissions.and dair y cows are one of the largestlivestock sources (Batt ' vc ci al.. 1994:US Environmental Protection Agency,2000). In the atmosphere. pri-utarily reacts to forni anitnoniuni sul-fate and ainmonium nitrate aerosols,which are regulated as part, of the CS

Environmental Protection AgencyNational Ambient Air Qualit y Stan-(lards for particulate matter with anaerodynamic diameter less than 2.5

ni because they are considered to bea human health concern. Because Nil.,is inghlv correlated with particulatematter less than 2.5 yin formation.it is anticipated that Nil emissionsfrom confined animal-feedin g opera-tions ill the United States ma y beregulated in the near future.

The state of Idaho has recentlyexperienced rapid growl li of the clairindustry. The number of milk cowshas increased by approxi natelv 80iii the past decade. with a 1 10% in-crease in nnlk production (USDA Na-tional Agricultural Statistics Service.2007). Idaho is the second largestmilk producer ill 12 western statesand has become the third largestmilk-producing state in the UnitedStates. In 2006. there were 477.193milking cows ill with 71% ofthese being located in the Magic Val-ley of southern Idaho (United Dair y

-men of Idaho, 2007). Although thisregion has benefited econonncallvfrom the growth of the dairy industry.there is muc:li concern regarding t he

Spatial distribution of a,ri r,iowa at a (a i//I 0( 11-10/ dairy 787

impact of coiiceiitiated (la iv y produc-tion facilities. wlli(ll (-ail la upwardof 10.000 animals per operation, auregional air quality.

At present, there is a scarcity ofseielit i ficall derived informationon valiolis climatic 1111(1 pi'O(illctiOuifactors that affect \i I. (missionsfromii (lairv operations. M am iagenleiitpract id-s such as animal hiousiig.manure imaildilug. andmanure storagecan all affect NI-I emission" from agiven production facilit y. Addi I ionallv.climatic conditions callhave a largeinfluence oil seasonal variabilityof emissions. \ Eontemiv and Erisman(1998). ill a review of research oileunissiolls from (hair y buildings. ('011-cluclecl that the important influencingparameters were urea conceal rationof t lie urine. urease activit y. 1)11.ten mpera t I re. air velocity, and floorarea The also indicated that rainfalland efficiency of yard cleaning mighthe 2 additional factors important foroutdoor yard areas.

Average NH emissions, measuredat free-stall (fairies clurii g sililminermonths iii Wisconsin and \\ashullgtollranged from 35 to 10 kg NH/cow peryear (Rumburg et al.. 2008: Flesch etal.. 2009) compared with 7.3 kg _H3/cow per year measured at all opeli-lot dairy ill Texas (luring the sunumner(I\luklmtar et al.. 2008). AullIllolliaemissions measured at various loca-tions oil an open-lot dair y indicatedthat in the summer. the lots contrib-uted 63V of tot a-i emissions and thelagoon contributed 30'X . 1111(1 ill vin-Icr, the lots contributed 95Y of thetotal NH, emissions (Mukhtar et al..2008). Estimated NH. 1 emissions drir-nlg summer months call as muchas 10 times those of winter months.largely because of temperature differ-emices (Pimmder el al.. 2004: Muklmtar etal.. 2008: Flesch et al., 2009).

Because hunted information isavailable regarding the contril )uul ionof various components of a prodmic-tiomi facility (i.e., animal housing vs.manure handling and storage) andthe seasonal effects oil NH 1 concentra-

tions ill areas, the objective of

this study was to measure the ambi-

ent NH 3 concentration s over several

seasons at locations t hrougla iiut alarge open-lot dair y to cleterimnne I lie((lilt rihi it ion of each area to total NIlgenerated. in addition. we identifiedlot conditions and inanagemuemit prac-tices that could imifjuieine the distribu-tion of NH across the lots. with tile

intent of imumderstandnig managementpractices that could be used to reduceambient NH couucelml rations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Site and Design

The dairy used ill stud y was aprivatel y owned commercial dair y insouthern Idaho. iii a rural location.with a i )proxi111it ('lv 10.000 milkingcows and a stocking density of 60 m2,/cow (Figure 1). This dair y was similarin configuration to iiiost open-lot pro-duction facilities iii soul bern Idaho.Tile operation consisted of 24 open-lot

Cii5 (t lie main 20 lots were consid-ered iii this study ), 2 milking parlors.a hospital barn, a maternit y barn.a manure solid separator, a lagoon(liquid storage poll(]). and a compostyard. The lot area included ill hestudy was approxinately 59 ha, andthe compost and lagoon areas wereboth 10 ha. Each lot had a loafingshed and 2 windbreaks. Wash waterfromn the milking parlor and runofffromim the open lots were retaimmed intime lagoon to the ('mist of the pens,and solid limaliure froin the pens wasc'onipost ed ill an area northwest, ofthe facilit y. Manure was scraped orvacuumed from feed alleys daily andplaced into cells near time solid separa-tor. The open-lot pens were harrowed(lailv when (Irn The facilit y swas ur-rounded liv irrigated cropland on 3sides and opeim range to the north.

Passive Nil 1 samplers (Ogaiva USAInc.. Pompano Beach, FL) wereinstalled at 3 locations oil dairy(cemiter of lots, lagoon, compost yard)and at I ofbdairv location (0.6 killsouth of the dairy) for backgroundconcentration. with 4 replicate trapsin each location. Samplers placed atthe central lot and background loca-tions were approximatel y 2 in abovethe ground. The samplers at the coin-

posting site were placed on poles. ap-proximately 2 in from the top of t hie

windrow. at a central location iii thecompost area. Saniplers were placedoil flotation device at the northwestc mn ar of the lagoon at approxi ii mat0.5 Ili above time lagoon surface. Todetermine the spatial distribution ofNI 1 across the 20 open lots. 36 sanm-plem's were installed ill a grid across 18of time lots mulld were attached to the('lids of timi' windbreaks (about 2.5 m)so that all but 2 lots had 2 samplersper lot (F'ignre 1).

All the samplers were deployed OhMonday and collected oil withall average deployment time of 1 d(luring each mont h of thelie year begin-lung in Marchi larch 21108 and continuingthrough fl'bruarv 2009. Dumnimmg thelnommt ii of December. no samplers wereplaced at the center lot or backgroundlocations. The lagoon was emptied inNovember aumd remained either emptyor frozen for time remainder of thestudy period: therefore. _X 11., samplerswere deployed only from March toOctober at this beat iou u. Time coni-post \'am'd was cleaned out in Octoberand remained enmptv until February.when new uiiauiure was brought ill forcomposting: therefore, samplers werenot deployed from ii October I lirougl i.Jammuai'y at this location. Addition-ally. for 7 of the 12 mmmo. 3 extra sets ofsamplers (3 replicates) were placed atthe center lot location and collecteddaily to determine if thieve was satura-tion of the t rmmps when left out over a4-d period.

Details regardin g passive samplerdesign and calculation of Nil., con-centrations ( ,ail found in Iloaclmmuiet ai. (2003). Concentrations frontpassive samplers are t nmie-averagedconcentra t iou is for time amount of tim mu'the sampler was exposed to the airand were calcmmlatedl with the fob-lowing equation: lug NH 1-N/nr 1 =[(mug NH.1-N) x (1 x 10 cin1/mn1)] /[(inin (hephoved) x (31.1 (umi1/nnn)1where mug Xli 1-N was the lumuss of NIh.,ext racted froum the filters and 31.c111' 1 /mnum was a rate constant used tocalculate diffusion to the trap (Road-man et al.. 2003).

33 34 35 36

29 30 31 32

WeatherStation

pp-

788

Lcytcrn (t (LI.

25 26

27 28

21 22

23 24

19 20

flflflflflflfl.flflfl

17 18 Center

13 14 Lot 15 16

9 10 11 12

5 6 7 8

Loafing Shed

Milking Parlor

Maternity Barn

f . Hospital Barn

Alleyways

1 2 3 4

Figure 1. Diagram of the open-lot (lain . uecl ILL t lie l)Il's('lLt 411(1V and t11( SaIiIpliIlg lO(i1( mi is

A meteorological station was beat- data at the farm overover the experiiuen- ized water, and then air-di-viii- in ied northwest of the pens and recorded tal period are shown in Table 1. clean hood. The filters (which trapair temperature, wind direction, wind NT-I1) were prepared Lv impregnatingspeed, solar radiation, and relative Ammonia Sampler Preparation a clean filter with 100 1iL of 2 (wt/humidity during the experimell- and Analysis vol) citric acid to saturate the fill erstal period. Measurements for wind (Ogawa USA Inc.) and drying beforespeed, air temperature. and humidity The tlisasseiiibled components of assembling the samplers. Assembledwere made at 2 m. All meteorologi- the passive samplers were thoroughl ysamplers were then placed into air-cal instruments were interfaced to a cleaned before each use (to avoid con- tight containers and transported toCampbell Scientific 21X Microbogger taimimiation and carryover) by rinsing time field for deployment. Immediately(Logan. UT). which recorded data in with deionized water, soaking in a 1 after collection in the field. samplers15-inin increments. Ambient weather M HC1 bath, rinsing again with demo- were placed back into the airtight

30

r225

20

-Ja)Ez

l o -Iz

5

ru

2 3 4 5Elapsed time, d

Figure 2.. \IIulliliiiL riiuiitrat iou nl(asuredl on traps uvrr I he 1-1 dr])loviilemitperiod.

Spatial distribution of anonoroa at a Iaiyr opcn-iot duiiy

789

Table 1. Ambient weather data measured at the open-lot dairy over the study period'

Wind Air temperature Air temperature Solar radiation,

Date

Wind speed, mis direction, maximum, C minimum, C

Humidity, %

W/m2

3/17/08 to 3/21/08

2.45

229

14.0 -3.9

73.6

174

4/21/08 to 4/25/08

3.15

185

17.8 -6.9

54.2

76

5/19/08 to 5/23/08

4.30

217

31.4

3.6

56.4

243

6/16/08 to 6/20/08

2.09

195

32.7

8.7

39.7

352

7/28/08 to 8/1/08

1.61

181

32.8

12.1

48.0

339

8/18/08 to 8/22/08

1.95

197

37.3

7.8

44.1

259

9/21/08 to 9/26/08

1.77

150

28.7

0.8

50.7

183

10/27/08 to 10/31/08

2.34

100

25.4

1.3

38.1

135

11/17/08 to 11/21/08

2.66

122

19.5 -0.5

60.7

109

12/15/08 to 12/19/08

3.83

114

1.6 -20.5

81.3

70

1/27/09 to 1/30/09

3.76

138

1.6 -9.1

84.6

133

2/23109 to 2/27/09

3.03

192

11.6 -5.7

77.5

105

'Wind speed, wind direction, humidity, and solar radiation values are average values.

containers and then transported tothe laboratory. The filters were care-fully removed from time samplers withclean forceps and transferred to 15-mL centrifuge tubes. where they wereextracted with a mnL of 1 Al NCI for30 nun with the extractant analyzedfor NH 1-N via flow injection analsisusing a Quickchem 8500 instrument(Lacliat Inst riunents. Milwaukee. WI)

Geostatistical Analysis

The NH. concent rat ions across thelots were analyzed using ArcGIS Geo-statistical Analyst (ESl 1. 2001) andsenllvariOgrain models, and predictionsurfaces were generated using ordi-nary Nriging. Data from each monthwere tested for normal distributionusing the histogram and Normal QQ-Plot functions, and global trends weredetermined using the Trend Analy-

sis function before generation of thesemivariograIns and prediction sur-faces. When data were not norniallvdistributed, data were log-transformedbefore analysis. and any global trendswere removed before tile generationof the semivaniogranis and predictionsurfaces. Cross-validation of modelswas performed. and models with thelowest mean prediction error and rootmean square SE closest to zero werechosen as time best-fit. models.

Statistical Analysis

Annuonia concentrations measuredat the 4 locations were tested fornormality using the Shapiro-Wilktest with the CAPABILITY proce-dure (SAS Institute. 2004). The datafor NH.. concentrations by location(March through September) wereanal zeci using the one-way ANOVAprocedure (SAS Institute. 2004). withlocation as the main effect. Meansseparation was carried out using thedifference of the least squares meanswith Tukey-Kramer adjustment andan n-level of 0.05. Pearson correla-tion coefficients were calculated forNH.1 concentration. wind speed. winddirection. teniperatimre, and humid-ity using the CORE procedure (SASInstitute, 200.1). Statements of statis-tical significance were based on P back-01701111d, with averages of (1.58, 0.33,0.30. and 0.04 mug NH 1 /mn 1 . respective-ly. Both time lagoon and mature coin-post released less Nil. 1 than thethe lots.winch was expected because mostNH. emissions are derived from theurea content of the livestock urine.which is hydrolyzed to NH.1 by theenzy me urease present in livestock fe-ces and soils. Because I lie mmmajoritv ofurea is likel y converted to -,\H : , in thesoils of the lots where it is excreted.as well as in feed lanes where I here ismmiiximmg of urine and feces, a smallersource is available for volatilizationin the lagoon and compost, areas. Theexception to this was in February.when fresh mnanui'e (mix of straw withurine and f'ces) was windrowed intime compost area. resulting imm seeni-imigly greater NH 3 concentrations thanin the (enter lot location. Addition-ally, in Jul concentrationsy thconcentrations at thelot and compost area were similar.winch is likel y because new Imlammurewas brought into the compost yardat this time ouch the wimidrows werebeing timrimeci during the measurement.period.

Mount et al. (2002) nmeasured NH.1Concentrations over a concrete yardhousing milk cows and slurr y Ia.-goons and found that concentrationsmeasured at the concrete Yard werean order of mnagmiitimde greater thanthose nieasurecl at the slum'm'v lagoon.Mukhtar et oh. (2008) reported tin-it

5pu.tiai (i/S ti'ibijtioii of ainJfloiilU at a lacyi op(!/-/L)f (1(111 If 791

Table 3. The range, mean (and SD), and median NH concentrations measured across the lots of the dairy andthe standard mean prediction error (SMPE) and root standard mean prediction error (RSMPE) for predictionsurfaces and lot conditions for each month

Across-lot NH concentration, mg/rn 3 Model fit

Range Mean (SD) Median SMPE RSMPE Lot conditionDate

2008March

0.25 to 0.65 0.41 (0.11) 0.39 0.0001 0.79

April 0.31 to 0.87 0.58 (0.18) 0.60 0.0045 0.92

May 0.22 to 0.66 0.42 (0.12) 0.42 0.0008 0.80

June 0.27to0.82 0.59(0.13) 0.59 0.0004 1.12

July 0.34 to 0.90 0.57 (0.13) 0.56 0.0026 0.83

August 0.31 to 0.87 0.56 (0.14) 0.56 0.0015 0.88

September 0.20 to 1.03 0.50 (0.17) 0.48 0.0045 1.10

October 0.12 to 1.09 0.57 (0.24) 0.53 across the lots could he seen (Figure3). it is interesting to note that, illJuly. the lots on the south and centraleast ern side were cleaned out and newtopsoil was brought into those lots,resulting ill lower NH. 1 concentrationsin these areas.

Iii simmnniarv. significantl y greaterNH. 1 concentrations were general elfin the lot area versus the compostand lagoon areas. which were notsignificantly different. Because thelots were greater in size by it

of approxiniatelv 6. it is evidentthat N14, emissions fron i this sectorof the dairy contributed the greatestammiount of NH., to the atmosphere.The spatial distribution of NH ,, acrossthe lots was heavily inflimcmtced hr cli-matic conditions ill(] lot niniagen1entpractices. Average NIl > concentrationstended to be lower and more uniformin months when the lots were frozen(winter) and when all the stockpilesof manure had been removed (May)and lots were dr y. Lower concentra-tions were also measured in lot areasin July where manure was removedand new topsoil added. Therefore,

frequent manure removal from lotswould he a good management prac-tice for reducing NH. 1 losses. However.(01 centrations could be greater wheremanure is stored or applied if it is notincorporated into the soil (Levteni etal., 2009). Good drainage of the lots isalso an important. mnanagemnenl prac-tice because conceal rations of NH,,were elevated when lots were wet andhad standing water. These conditionstend to favor NH,, formation, winch.when coupled with ivi idv conditions,can lead to large Nil > losses. Addi-tionallv. mmieasimrii ig NH,, concent ra-tions with passive samplers providedresults comparable to other studies.indicating that passive samplers arean affordable method fdr measuringNil,umat anial production facilities.

LITERATURE CITED

Bat ft c. IL. W. Batt ve, C. Overoasli. illid S.Flillgl'. I 91)1. Development 1111(1 SolI(tion ofAmmonia FnhlSSlOmi Factors. 68-M-003-1. PSEns 111)11. Plot. .&geilcv. Waslihi g loji. I)('.

LS1tI. 2001. tTsiiig AreClS Cs151111151>edAnilvsi . L8ltI, it('(It1lui(l5. CA.

Filial>. T. K.. L. A. Harper, J. M. Ravoil,>11111 J. D. W ilson. 2009. ll1vprse-dispersionl'iill'Illflt 11)115 Ii! allimollia elllissilins from \\>.-

(I)IiI",' 11111115. Trans. SAUL. 52:253,

LIiili'iiiitsoii. G. 1,.. A. U. N1(11.ior, and C. F.Andre. 1982. Aiiini>iiiiii (11111 ?llllille l'iIiiSSIOIIsfrom it large (111.1(1' 101il101,. J. Liiviroii. Q11>t1.11:288.

Lev)l'm. A. II., 1). L. Bjnriieherg, B. F. Shef-field. >111(1 Ni. F. 110 iIau'o N1>irti. 2009. Casestuds': 011-farin 1v1(iuIa( loll of 11911111 hairy I11)1-111111 i)I)pliciLtlhhll 11111111111S I.>) reducc aIlillIoluia105151,. Prof A iuiitu. Sei . 25:93.

Nfisseibrook. F. II...). \\eIii ,. aint S. F.(4ilhespv. 2006. Ammonia emissions fromoutdoor ch.)Iul'rete yards used be livestock-

1 111111 1 1 iheat>oii (1111 i1iltlgiiloii At inns. FSivi-ron. 10:6752.

Nlonienv. C...... .nid .1. . Erisimuami, 1998.Ammonia ('IIiiiaiolu>. froill ilairv ('10V I>uilditii,s:A l'1'V11l\ of unhn>-iiir(l IIeIu) I eeluui>pu>. . infirm-('iiimg Factor 11111 poiiailniil ia for 15(1(1011011.Netlu. J. .\grie. So> 16:225.

\loiiuit, G. 11.. 11. lliiiiihiuu'g, J. FIavig. B.Land. II. \'>esl berg. D. \nuige. K.111111 B. Kim-aid. 2002. Measureineiit of atnio-sidueric ailunloilia al a hl1urv using ilifh'remitial()((1 ical a1(51(rlltlh)Ii spectroscopy ill the iniul-iultr>uviolet. Atilil(5. Lnvii'oiu. 36:1799.

NlIlklit 111', S..A A. Niiithii. S. C. Cllp)11'(da, andC. B. Parnell. 2008. Seasonal >iisl spatialvariations of )illiillOill>h ('llllSSlOi(l 111)111 liii09111 it (hairy operalion. J. Air Waste Man-

Assoc.Assoc . 58:369.

Piuider, B. W., H. Strader, C. 1. Davidson.and P. .1 Adams. 200 I. A temporall y and51)1St ia11' resolved ihiilllli11ii1i) ellIlSSl()l1 luivelu-tory for >laj' v cows ill tllc 1>1111011 Stales..\tuuuos. Envii'on. :18:37.17.

Tioadniamu, NI......1. R. Sciidlark.....J. NicE-itcyr, and NV J. I I llniaii. 2003. \aIid>ii Oil of)gawa passive samplers for (lie (let enlluluai ion

of gaseous allum()iiia conceit) rat 11(115 ill igriciil-Inral slit mgI. At 1111(5. Liivirniu .li:23 17.

fllllnlzlrg. B., G. H. Nloimiim . J. FiFupv. B.Lamb. H. \Vestberg. D. Yoiige, B. Kincaid,and K. .Jduiisoiu. 2008. it lea,uiremlnt andmodeling at atiuuosplieric llioc of auuiiuina>ifi'omn dair y milking cow housing. A iiio.Ens iron. 42:3361.

.52>5 Institute. 200 I. SAS/STAT UsersGuide. Release 9.!. SAS bust. hue., Car y. NC.

Unim oil Dair y men of 011>110. 2007. 1(1)1)10 Dairy1'ucls. ii1.Iiiited D>uiryiiie of, 111a11(1. http://\vwsv.l(lala)dilil'vuoulilcil.('om/geluera.ldairvmfl(.11sf) Accessed Feb. 20. 2009.

USDA National Agricuilt urd St>a (stiesService. 2007. Quirk Slats. hit p://svww.nass.iisda.gov/QuiickStats/PiiIID >ita I 1S.ip \iceased Fe! wu iarv 26. 2009.

1.15 Eu yin winel it al Protect ion Agei nv. 2000.National Air Polluit jolt fronds: 1990 1995.lit tp: 1/ sv wwxp; 1.gov/ Lt iu/ 'I nd/f rei ids/I reli(1s95, Accessed Feb. 26. 2009.

Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8