11 research outputs found
Life Cycle Assessment of Segregating Fattening Pig Urine and Feces Compared to Conventional Liquid Manure Management
Gaseous emissions from in-house storage of liquid animal manure
remain a major contributor to the environmental impact of manure management.
Our aim was to assess the life cycle environmental consequences and
reduction potential of segregating fattening pig urine and feces with
an innovative V-belt system and to compare it to conventional liquid
manure management, that is, the reference. Moreover, we aimed at analyzing
the uncertainty of the outcomes related to applied emission factors.
We compared a reference with two scenarios: segregation with solid,
aerobically, stored feces and with liquid, anaerobically, stored feces.
Results showed that, compared to the reference, segregation reduced
climate change (CC) up to 82%, due to lower methane emission, reduced
terrestrial acidification (TA) and particulate matter formation (PMF)
up to 49%, through lower ammonia emission, but increased marine eutrophication
up to 11% through nitrogen oxide emission from storage and nitrate
leaching after field application. Fossil fuel depletion did not change.
Segregation with liquid feces revealed lower environmental impact
than segregation with solid feces. Uncertainty analysis supported
the conclusion that segregating fattening pig urine and feces significantly
reduced CC and additionally segregation with liquid feces significantly
reduced TA and PMF compared to the reference
Rectal temperature (mean ± standard error) of BHI and EHI pigs.
<p>Days of infection (ID0 and ID8) are indicated as black vertical lines. HxD: housing-day interaction effect. ‘a’ denotes higher temperatures on ID2(2) and ID8(2) as compared with other days (both p<0.001). Post hoc comparison at ID9(1) and ID9(2): **: p<0.01 and *: p<0.05.</p
Enriched Housing Reduces Disease Susceptibility to Co-Infection with Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Virus (PRRSV) and <i>Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae</i> (<i>A</i>. <i>pleuropneumoniae</i>) in Young Pigs - Fig 4
<p><b>Overall histology (A) and total interstitial component (B) score.</b> The central blue box indicates the lower and upper boundary at the 25% / 75% quantile of the data. The central red line indicates the median of the data. Two vertical lines extending from the central box indicate the remaining data outside the central box that are not regarded as outliers. Outliers are indicated as red crosses. ***: p<0.001; *: p<0.05.</p
Skin lesion scores (mean of a four-point scale ± standard error).
<p>(A) Front. (B) Middle. (C) Rear of the body. Blue bars: BH pigs, Red bars: EH pigs. W-1 and W+1: days before and after weaning. T-1 and T+1: days before and after transport. Black dotted vertical line indicates the separate statistical analysis of the day before weaning. HxD: housing-day interaction effect. Day effects are indicated as ‘a’ and ‘b’, bars with no common superscript differ significantly (p<0.05).</p
Phenotypic markers of BALF Cells (mean percentages and MFI ± standard error).
<p>Phenotypic markers of BALF Cells (mean percentages and MFI ± standard error).</p
Behaviour of BH and EH pigs (frequencies/pig/10min, mean ± standard error).
<p>(A) Oral manipulation. (B) Mounting. (C) Aggression. (D) Manipulation pen. Blue bars: BH pigs, Red bars: EH pigs. W-1 and W+1: days before and after weaning. T-1 and T+1: days before and after transport. Black dotted vertical line indicates the separate statistical analysis of the day before weaning. HxD: housing-day interaction effect. Day effects are indicated as ‘a’-‘c’, bars with no common superscript differ significantly (p<0.05). (A) Post hoc comparison of housing effect at T-1, ***: p<0.001.</p
Absolute numbers of blood cells counts in BHI and EHI pigs (mean ± standard error).
<p>(A) WBC. (B) Lymphocytes. (C) Granulocytes. (D) Monocytes. (E) Cytotoxic T-cells. (F) NK cells. Moments of infections are represented as black vertical lines. HxD: housing-day interaction. ‘a’ denotes a significant increase between ID8 and ID9 in BHI pigs (post hoc comparison, p<0.05).</p