Next Article in Journal
Earthworm Lumbricus terrestris Contributes Nitrous Oxide Emission from Temperate Agricultural Soil Regardless of Applied Mineral Nitrogen Fertilizer Doses
Next Article in Special Issue
Assessment of a Low-Cost Portable Device for Gas Concentration Monitoring in Livestock Housing
Previous Article in Journal
Quality Characteristics of Noodles Processed from Rice Grains of the Ratoon Crop
Previous Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of a Tomato Waste Biofilter for the Retention of Gaseous Losses from Pig Slurry Hygienization by pH Modification
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Mitigating Ammonia and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Stored Pig Slurry Using Chemical Additives and Biochars

1
Agrarian School of Viseu, Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, Quinta da Alagoa, 3500-606 Viseu, Portugal
2
Centre for the Research and Technology of Agro-Environmental and Biological Sciences (CITAB), Inov4Agro, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, Quinta de Prados, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal
3
CERNAS-IPV Research Centre, Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, Campus Politécnico, Repeses, 3504-510 Viseu, Portugal
4
QOPNA and LAQV-REQUIMTE, Department of Chemistry, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
5
LEAF, Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universidade de Lisboa, Tapada da Ajuda, 1349-017 Lisboa, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2022, 12(11), 2744; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12112744
Submission received: 28 September 2022 / Revised: 14 October 2022 / Accepted: 3 November 2022 / Published: 4 November 2022

Abstract

:
Slurry storage is a significant source of NH3 and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The aim of this laboratory study was to assess the effects of different chemical additives and biochars on the emissions of NH3, N2O, CO2, and CH4 during the short-term storage of pig slurry. The experiment was performed using Kilner jars filled with raw slurry as control and six treatment additives (5% w/w): acidified slurry, alkalinized slurry, neutralized slurry, agroforestry biochar, cardoon biochar, and elderberry biochar. The gas emissions were measured for 30 days, and the composition of the slurries was determined. During short-term storage, the results of this laboratory study indicated that the NH3 emissions were reduced by 58% by acidification and by 20% by the biochars (Agroforestry, Cardoon, and Elderberry treatments), while neutralization reduced this loss by only 12%. Nitrous oxide emissions were not reduced by the chemical additives (Acidified, Alkalinized, and Neutralized treatments), while this loss was increased by 12% by the biochars. Carbon dioxide, CH4, and global warming potential emissions were not affected by the chemical additives and biochars. Furthermore, the absence of differences between the biochars may be related to their similar composition. Regarding the influence of the studied additives on NH3 losses, it can be concluded that acidification was the best mitigation measure and the biochars were quite similar due to their composition. Furthermore, neutralization had the advantage of sanitizing the slurry, but only had a mild impact on NH3 preservation.

1. Introduction

The global animal supply chain represents 60% of the total ammonia (NH3), 23% of the nitrogen oxide (NOx), and 32% of the nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions of global human-induced nitrogen (N) emissions [1], representing about 33% of the total human-induced N emissions. Most N emissions are generated during feed production (e.g., following fertilizer N applications) and animal manure management, mainly via NH3 volatilization, denitrification, and nitrate (NO3) leaching [1]. Other greenhouse gas (GHG) emission from animal operations are methane (CH4) from enteric fermentation and manure storage. At the EU-28 level, animal manure management is responsible for the majority of NH3 emissions and one third of GHGs [2]. Emissions result from high animal densities, poor manure management, and/or poor disposal when these systems produce more manure than what can be recycled in the surrounding agricultural area. At the global scale, animal manure management generates ca. 40% of the anthropogenic NH3 and N2O emissions and 6% of the anthropogenic methane (CH4) emissions [3]. The manure excreted in the EU-27 in 2010 was equivalent to 9.7 Tg N and its management contributed to 65% of the total anthropogenic NH3, 40% of N2O, and 10% of CH4 emissions [3]. Most N losses from manure occurs via NH3 volatilization, with losses representing between 30 and 70% of the ammonium (NH4+) content of manure [4,5].
Animal production, and more specifically, a lack of good manure management, is re-sponsible for a significant quantity of NH3 and GHG emissions at a global scale. Several Best Available Techniques (BAT) are available to farmers to mitigate these losses and reduce the environmental impacts associated with animal manure management [6]. Gaseous emissions occur in all manure management stages—housing, storage, processing, and recycling as crop fertilizer after field application. Animal feeding strategies, such as reducing by 1% the crude protein, and feed supplements, such as clinoptilolite or Yucca extract, can be adopted to decrease NH3 emissions. Regarding housing, floor designs such as double-sloped solid floor or grooved floors, management of cleanings by scraping or flushing, additives such as urease inhibitor, alum, or acidification, and treatment of exhaust air by scrubber or biofilters are the most efficient for lowering NH3 emissions. At the storage level, covers by fixed lid or plastic cover, and additives such as acidification could be used to reduce NH3 emissions. Regarding soil application, slurry application techniques, such as injection or acidification, are the most effective to reduce NH3 emissions. However, it is important to consider potential pollution swapping when planning and implementing mitigation measures.
Emissions that occur during the storage of animal manure are the result of complex biological, physical, and chemical transformation processes [7]. Ammonium is in equilibrium with the NH3 that will be lost by volatilization, leading also to carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions [8]. During manure decomposition, N2O and nitric oxide (NO) are emitted by the nitrification and denitrification processes [9]. Nitrification can be performed by autotrophic and heterotrophic organisms under aerobic conditions whereas denitrification is the stepwise reduction of NO3 to dinitrogen (N2) under anaerobic conditions [10]. The availability of NH4+ and NO3 are the primary requirements for the nitrification and denitrification processes, respectively, but also the availability of easily degradable carbon (C) influences these processes [10]. Nitrous oxide emissions are quite low during liquid manure (slurry) storage due to the anaerobic conditions existing during slurry storage. However, the co-existence of aerobic and anaerobic conditions during solid manure storage or even close to the natural crust formed during liquid manure storage might stimulate both nitrification and denitrification, the main processes responsible for N2O emissions [11]. The anaerobic decomposition of the organic matter by methanogenic bacteria leads to CH4 and CO2 emissions. Organic matter is considered a major limiting factor for CH4 production, once anaerobiosis is established, and CH4 emissions are closely related to manure temperature [12]. Management practices such as storage duration, agitation or mixing, and emptying of storage tanks play important roles in CH4 emissions during storage [13]. Methane emissions during manure storage can represent up to 6.5 or 5.4 kg m−2 per year from covered and uncovered slurry pits, respectively [14].
A wide range of additives could be used at storage, where they act as acidifying and adsorbent additives, and can affect the microbial activity in slurries; they also have been shown to reduce slurry pH. Furthermore, biological additives constitute microbial strains and or enzymes, which facilitate biodegradation of organic materials in animal slurry. Previous studies proposed various strategies involving the amendment of additives to animal slurry in order to reduce NH3 and GHG losses, namely, acidification (e.g., alum, sulfuric acid, and other dry acids) [15], bio-acidification (e.g., sugar sources, whey, and lactic acid) [16], urease and nitrification inhibitors (e.g., N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT), 3,4-dimethylpyrazol phosphate (DMPP), and dicyandiamide (DCD)) [17,18], adsorbents (e.g., natural zeolites, agricultural gypsum, and biochars from agroforestry or manures) [8,19], and biological additives (e.g., Biobuster®, EU200®, and JASS®) [20]. There is the potential to use slurry additives to improve the handling properties, but a proper evaluation of the effects of slurry treatments is required to investigate the mode of action, as this information is often not disclosed by companies. An effective assessment of the effects of slurry treatments or the combination of different treatments in mitigating different emission processes should change from a single-stage approach to include real/pilot-scale experiments. These studies should be made using a slurry whole-life-cycle scale to avoid pollution swapping and simultaneously to determine the most efficient solution for manure energy and nutrients recovery.
The aim of this laboratory study was to assess the effects of different chemical additives and biochars on the emissions of NH3, N2O, CO2, and CH4 during the short-term storage of pig slurry.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Treatments

The raw slurry used in this study was collected in the outlet tube of a fattening pig building located in Viseu, Portugal, and the composition is given in Table 1. A laboratory experiment was conducted in which were considered the following seven treatments with three replications:
  • Raw slurry as control (treatment: Control);
  • Acidification of raw slurry to pH 5.0 (treatment: Acidified);
  • Alkalinization of raw slurry to pH 9.5 (treatment: Alkalinized);
  • Neutralization of raw slurry to pH 7.5 (treatment: Neutralized);
  • Raw slurry amended with wood shavings biochar (treatment: Agroforestry);
  • Raw slurry amended with cardoon biochar (treatment: Cardoon);
  • Raw slurry amended with elderberry biochar (treatment: Elderberry).
Table 1. Composition of the pig slurry and biochars used in the experiment (n = 1).
Table 1. Composition of the pig slurry and biochars used in the experiment (n = 1).
ParameterRaw SlurryAgroforestryCardoonElderberryMethod
pH (H2O) 8.19.512.412.6Potentiometry, EN 13037, Brussels, Belgium
Dry matter, g kg−1 12.2934.0645.3980.8Gravimetric method, EN 13040, Brussels, Belgium
Total C, g kg−1 41.2759.0448.0670.0Dumas method
Total N, g kg−1 5.82.07.015.0Kjeldahl method, EN 13654-1, Brussels, Belgium
NH4+-N, g kg−1 3.4 Absorption spectrophotometry, EN 13652, Brussels, Belgium
NO3-N, mg kg−11.7 Absorption spectrophotometry, EN 13652, Brussels, Belgium
Average particle size, µm 211232Sieving method
90% size of particles, µm <37<26<59Sieving method
Specific surface area, m2 g−1 2218032Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller method
Pore volume, mm3 g−1 1.167.016.0Mercury porosimetry
The treatment Control was obtained using a sample raw slurry (4000 g) without any additive, which was retained in closed plastic containers at 20 °C for 24 h.
The three treatments (Acidified, Alkalinized, and Neutralized) treated with chemical additives were obtained by the methodology described in Rodrigues et al. [21] and Pereira et al. [22]. The treatment Acidified was obtained using a sample of raw slurry (4000 g), which was acidified by adding 32 mL of concentrated H2SO4 (95% (w/w, Chem-Lab, Zedelgem, Belgium), to the target pH of 5.0. The treatment Alkalinized was obtained using a sample of raw slurry (4000 g), which was subjected to alkalinization with pH 9.5 that was achieved by adding 28 g of concentrated KOH (85% w/w, Macron Fine Chemicals, Radnor, PA, USA). The treatment Neutralized was obtained using a sample of raw slurry (4000 g), which was alkalinized to pH 9.5, and after 24 h, the slurry sample was neutralized to pH 7.5 by adding 16 mL of concentrated H2SO4 (95% w/w, AppliChem GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany).
The others three treatments (Agroforestry, Cardoon, and Elderberry) were amended with the biochars, each one at a rate of 50 g of additive per 1000 g of raw slurry, as recommended in previous studies [19,23]. The Agroforestry and Elderberry biochars were produced from wood shavings and stalks of cardoon (Cynara cardunculus L.), respectively, being pyrolyzed in a muffle furnace (900 °C); in turn, the Elderberry biochar was produced from stalks of elderberry (Sambucus nigra L.) and pyrolyzed in a muffle furnace at 550 °C. The main characteristics of the Agroforestry, Cardoon, and Elderberry biochars are presented in Table 1.
The samples of the treatments were subdivided into individual doses of 1 kg (three replications per treatment), and immediately stored in plastic containers and frozen (−18 °C) until required for the laboratory experiment. The subsamples were retained and analyzed by standard laboratory methods for the parameters reported in Table 2.

2.2. Measurement of Gaseous Emissions

For this, the experiment was run in a system of 12 Kilner jars (H = 23.0 cm, Ø = 10.5 cm, volume = 2 L) filled with 1000 g (H = 10.5 cm) of each treatment (in triplicate per treatment), under a constant temperature (20 ± 0.5 °C), airflow rate, and for 30 days [8,19]. Then, one air inlet and one air outlet were positioned symmetrically in the jar lid, inserting a Teflon tube (Ø = 3 mm) through one of the septa and the end kept 2 cm above the slurry surface. The airflow through the headspace of each jar was obtained by a pump (KNF, model N010.KN.18, Neuberger GmbH, Freiburg, Germany) with a 2.5 L min−1 flowrate controlled by a needle valve connected to a flow meter (Aalborg FT10201SAVN, Aalborg, Denmark). The inlet air passed through NH3 trapping filters coated with C2H2O4 and the outlet air of the Kilner jars was exhausted by a fume hood.
The gas concentrations (NH3, N2O, CO2, and CH4) were measured in the outlet air of the jars with a photoacoustic multigas monitor (INNOVA 1412i-5, Lumasense Technologies, Ballerup, Denmark) and air samples collected, in sequence (120 s intervals), through one sampling point (Ø = 3 mm) per Kilner jar, using a multipoint sampler (INNOVA 1409-12, Lumasense Technologies, Ballerup, Denmark) with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) filters (1 µm pore size, Whatman, Ome, Japan). The photoacoustic monitor was equipped with an optical filter for water vapor (filter type SB0527, Lumasense Technologies, Ballerup, Denmark) and the detection limits for NH3 (filter type UA0973, Lumasense Technologies, Ballerup, Denmark), N2O (filter type UA0985, Lumasense Technologies, Ballerup, Denmark), CO2 (filter type UA0982, Lumasense Technologies, Ballerup, Denmark), and CH4 (filter type UA0969, Lumasense Technologies, Ballerup, Denmark) were, respectively, 152.1, 58.9, 2947.1, and 286.4 µg m−3. The photoacoustic monitor was calibrated by the manufacturer before the starting of the experiment, being operated in a mode that compensated for water interference and cross interference.
The laboratory experiment was performed in triplicate and all treatments were included in each replication. Thus, seven sampling points of the multipoint sampler were used to measure the outlet gas concentrations of the seven treatments and the remaining sampling points were used to average the inlet gas concentrations.

2.3. Statistical Treatment of Data

The NH3, N2O, CO2, and CH4 concentrations were used to calculate the means per hour and day per each outlet an inlet sampling point. Thus, the emission of these four gases was determined (per hour) using a mass balance, as described in Equation (1):
EMISSION = FLOWRATE × ( OUTLET INLET AREA )
where EMISSION is the gas emission (mg m−2 h−1), FLOWRATE is the air flowrate in the Kilner jar (m3 h−1), OUTLET is the outlet gas concentration (mg m−3), INLET is the inlet gas concentration (mg m−3), and AREA (m2) is the emitting surface area of the Kilner jar.
The reduction efficiencies (REDUCTION, %) of the NH3, N2O, CO2, and CH4 emissions from the amended treatments, compared to the Control, were determined as described in Regueiro et al. [24], using Equation (2):
REDUCTION = 100 AMENDED / CONTROL × 100
where AMENDED is the mean value of the individual or cumulative gas values from the amended treatments, and CONTROL is the mean value of the individual or cumulative gas values from the Control.
The cumulative emissions of NH3, N2O, CO2, and CH4 were determined by averaging the flux between two sampling occasions and multiplying by the time interval between the measurements [8,19]. The cumulative emissions were expressed as the % total N or C applied in each amended treatment. The global warming potential (GWP) for each Kilner jar was assessed using the GWP coefficients for direct GHG emissions (265 for N2O, 1 for CO2, and 28 for CH4) and indirect N2O emissions (1% NH3-N volatilized for N2O-N) [8,25].
The data collected were analyzed by the statistical software package STATISTIX 10.0 (Analytical Software, Tallahassee, FL, USA). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the effects of each treatment on the composition and gaseous emissions, and the statistical significance (p < 0.05) of the means’ difference between treatments was determined by the Tukey’s HSD (honestly significant difference) test.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Composition of the Slurries

The compositions of the treatments at the beginning (Day 0) of the experiment are presented in Table 2. The content of total C, total N, and the C/N ratio did not differ significantly (p > 0.05) between all treatments, with the values observed varying from 29 to 43 g kg−1 for total C, 5.5 to 5.8 g kg−1 for total N, and 6 to 8 for the C/N ratio (Table 2). The NH4+ content did not differ significantly (p > 0.05) among the Control and treatments with chemical additives (3.3 to 3.8 g kg−1), being significantly higher (p < 0.05) in treatments with biochar (4.5 to 5.2 g kg−1) (Table 2).
The slurry acidification reduces the NH3 volatilization and preserves NH4+ because it lowers its pH from 3.5 to 5.5 and modifies the NH4+/NH3 ratio to 98.00–99.98% NH4+ [15]. The slurry alkalinization reduces the number of pathogens and increases the NH3 volatilization by raising its pH from 9.0 to 11.0 [21,22]. Thus, the use of alkalinized slurry is a safer solution than raw slurry regarding the risk of groundwater pollution [26]. The slurry neutralization reduces the risks pointed for slurry alkalinization by lowering the pH from 9.5 to 7.5 [21,22]. In this study, for most parameters, the composition of the treatments with chemical additives and raw slurry did not differ significantly (Table 2), although some contradictions have been reported in previous studies: Regueiro et al. [24] observed higher concentrations of total solids in acidified pig slurry relative to raw slurry whereas Pereira et al. [22] recorded higher concentrations of DM and TC in raw slurry.
Previous studies reported that the biochar properties are highly dependent on the temperature (300–1000 °C), time of pyrolysis, final acidity, and feedstock from which the biochar is produced [27]. Compared to raw slurry, the addition of biochar to the slurry increases the pH value, C/N ratio, cation-exchange capacity, and microbial activities [28,29,30,31,32], in line with this study in which an increase in DM and NH4+ was observed in treatments with biochar. Although the specific surface area and porosity were higher in Cardoon than Agroforestry or Elderberry, an absence of differences in the composition of treatments with biochar added to slurry was observed, which could be related to the solution pH in these treatments being similar (Table 2).

3.2. Nitrogen Emissions

As can be observed in Table 3, the daily NH3 fluxes peaked on Day 1 and decreased in all treatments until the end of the experiment (from 6789 to 82 mg m−2 h−1). The NH3 fluxes did not differ significantly (p > 0.05) between the Control and Neutralized treatments during the experiment; however, the Acidified treatment significantly reduced (p < 0.05) these fluxes by 64% in the first 20 days while the Alkalinized treatment significantly increased (p < 0.05) by 409% in the first 4 days (Table 3). Compared to the Control treatment, the NH3 fluxes from the biochar treatments (Agroforestry, Cardoon, and Elderberry) decreased by 45% in the first 6 days and 18% in the 30 days of the experiment, although this reduction was not statistically significant (p > 0.05) (Table 3). The cumulative emissions of NH3, expressed in g m−2 or as % of total N applied, did not differ significantly (p > 0.05) between the Control, Neutralized, and biochar treatments; nevertheless, 12 and 20% reductions were observed in the Neutralized and biochar treatments, respectively (Table 3 and Table 4). Compared to all other treatments, the cumulative emissions of NH3, expressed in g m−2 or as % of total N applied, of the Acidified treatment decreased significantly (p < 0.05) by 58%, while these same losses were increased significantly (p < 0.05) by 114% in the Alkalinized treatment (Table 3 and Table 4).
As can be observed in Table 4, the NH3 emissions decreased by 58% through the maintenance of a low and stable pH by the addition of sulfuric acid, whereas these losses were reduced by 20% due to adsorption of NH4+ by the addition of biochar. Thus, the slurry acidification was efficient in preserving the NH3 because the amount of NH4+ and NH3 that was dissociated as NH3 gas is about 6/1000 at pH = 5.0 and temperature = 25 °C [33]. The results of this study are in the same range to those reported in previous studies [15,34], where the acidification of pig slurry reduced NH3 emissions from 50 to 88% relative to raw slurry; they also found that the slurry alkalinization enhances NH3 losses, particularly in the first days of storage, while the slurry neutralization decreases NH3 losses below the baseline of the raw slurry, corroborating Pereira et al. [22]. On other hand, the enhancement of the NH4+ and NH3 binding by the high specific surface area and cation exchange capacity of the biochars led to a decrease in NH3 losses [28]. The results revealed that the addition of a biochar reduced the NH3 emissions, which agreed with previous studies [8,19,30] who added biochar (1–12% w/w) to animal manure, reducing the NH3 emissions from 12 to 77%.
As can be seen in Table 5, no major variations were observed between treatments in the daily N2O fluxes throughout the 30 days of the experiment (8 to 12 mg m−2 h−1), with higher fluxes in the treatments with biochars. The daily N2O fluxes from the Control and treatments with chemical additives (Acidified, Alkalinized, and Neutralized) did not differ significantly (p > 0.05), with the exception of the first 2 days, were the fluxes decreased significantly (p < 0.05) by 19% in the Alkalinized treatment (Table 5). The N2O fluxes from the biochar treatments were significantly higher (p < 0.05) than most measurements after the first 15 days when compared with the Control treatment, followed by an absence of significant differences (p > 0.05) among all treatments at the end of the experiment (Table 5). The cumulative N2O emissions, expressed in g m−2 or as a % of total N applied, were not significantly different (p > 0.05) among the Control and treatments with chemical additives, whereas the fluxes of these treatments were significantly lower (p < 0.05), by 12%, when compared with the biochar treatments (Table 4 and Table 5).
Nitrous oxide losses were shown to arise from the nitrification and denitrification processes due to the presence of aerobic and anaerobic conditions in the stored slurries and under a dry crust that has formed on the surface [35]. The reduction in N2O emissions by acidification is usually related to the inhibition of the nitrification/denitrification processes, but some contradictions are observed in previous studies. For example, Kupper et al. [34] reported that the pig slurry acidified with sulfuric acid increased the N2O loss by 39%, while Pereira et al. [8] found that raw pig slurry or their derived liquid fraction amended with alum (5% w/w) had no significant effect on N2O reduction. The decrease in N2O emissions by biochar is related to the adsorption of NH4+, which could reduce its availability for nitrification. In this study, the higher N2O emissions from the biochar treatments originated from anaerobic and aerobic microsites that occurred in the samples, being related to the higher amounts of DM observed in these treatments (Table 2), water evaporation, and dry conditions, together with air-filled porosity [36]. However, Pereira et al. [8] reported that raw pig slurry or its derived liquid fraction amended with biochar (5% w/w) had no significant effect on N2O reduction, which may be related to the previously stated.
The cumulative N (NH3 + N2O) emissions, expressed in g m−2 or as % of total N applied, were not significantly different (p > 0.05) between the Control, Neutralized, and biochar treatments; furthermore, a decrease in the Neutralized and biochar treatments of 12 and 19% was observed, respectively (Table 4). The cumulative N (NH3 + N2O) emissions, expressed as g m−2 or as % of applied N, were reduced significantly (p < 0.05), by 57%, in the Acidified treatment, and increased significantly (p < 0.05), by 110%, in the Alkalinized treatment, when compared to all other treatments (Table 4).

3.3. Carbon Emissions

As can be seen in Table 6, in the 30 days of the experiment, small variations were observed between the daily CO2 fluxes of all treatments (17 to 22 g m−2 h−1), with numerically higher fluxes in most measurement dates of the treatments with biochars. The daily fluxes of CO2 from the Control and treatments with chemical additives (Acidified, Alkalinized, and Neutralized) were not significantly different (p > 0.05), except between Days 2 and 15, where fluxes decreased significantly (p < 0.05) by 10% in the Acidified and Alkalinized treatments (Table 6). The CO2 fluxes from the Control and biochar treatments did not differ significantly (p > 0.05) at almost all measurement dates (Table 6). The cumulative CO2 emissions, expressed in g m−2 or as % of total C applied, were not significantly different (p > 0.05) among all treatments, with CO2 losses that ranged from 75 to 85% of total C applied (Table 4 and Table 6).
The CO2 emissions come from the microbial degradation of the organic matter and hydrolysis of urea [37], being related to the release of the CO2 dissolved in the slurry itself and/or bicarbonate and carbonate present in the slurries at storage. Typically, the CO2 losses from the acidification process occur at rates 2–10 times higher than during the subsequent storage [15]. In this study, the decrease in CO2 fluxes between Days 2 and 15 and the absence of differences among the Control and treatments with chemical additives after the 30 days of storage (Table 4 and Table 6) are in line with Fangueiro et al. [38], who observed lower CO2 emissions from acidified than from raw slurry over the whole storage period, and Dai and Blanes-Vidal [39] who did not find significant differences over 40 days of storage. Previous studies reported that the addition of biochar (2.5–5.0% w/w) to pig slurry led to a decrease in CO2 losses of 25–50% [8,19], by either sorption onto the biochar or a reduction in the labile C availability, being affected by differences among the biochars, such as the feedstock, method, and temperature pyrolysis. However, the results of this study revealed an absence of a significant effect on CO2 reduction, although Czekała et al. [40] reported that CO2 emissions from animal manure increased by between 7 and 8% through the addition of biochar (5–10% w/w).
As can be seen in Table 7, the daily fluxes in CH4 followed the same trend in the treatments, with a progressive increase (86 to 228 mg m−2 h−1) throughout the 30 days of the experiment, except for the Alkalinized treatment, which had a progressive decrease (266 to 99 mg m−2 h−1) from the beginning until the end of the experiment (Table 7). Compared to the Control and Neutralized treatments, the daily CH4 fluxes were significantly higher (p < 0.05), by 87%, for the Alkalinized treatment, and significantly lower (p < 0.05), by 20%, for the Acidified treatment in the first 2 days of the experiment. From to this day until the end of the experiment, there were no significant differences (p > 0.05) between the daily CH4 fluxes of these treatments (Table 7). The daily CH4 fluxes did not differ significantly (p > 0.05) among the biochar treatments, being significantly higher (p < 0.05), by 17%, than the Control treatment in the first 11 days of the experiment (Table 7). The cumulative CH4 emissions, expressed in g m−2 or as a % of total C applied, were not significantly different (p > 0.05) between all treatments, with CH4 losses that ranged from 1.6 to 1.8% of total C applied (Table 4 and Table 7).
Methane emissions can originate through the degradation of organic matter under anaerobic conditions during slurry storage [41] The results of this study (20% CH4 reduction for treatment Acidified in the first 2 days) are lower than other published studies [15,42], who reported a 67–87% reduction with sulfuric acid acidification. This result may be related to the fact that CH4 emissions should be reduced by long-term acidification treatments, but not by short-term acidification, and considering that CO2 emissions occurred mainly under aerobic conditions, no significant CH4 emissions were expected [8,15]. Additionally, the low depth (H = 10.5 cm) of the slurry and the high airflow rate (2.5 L min−1) in jars may have led to aerobic conditions in this study. On the other hand, in the 2 first days of storage, the slurry alkalinization increased the CH4 emissions by 87% because the gas loss increased with pH [43]. Biochar reduces CH4 emissions due to its adsorption capacity [28], but no differences were found between the three biochars evaluated in this study, which may be related to the similarity in its composition (Table 2). However, although the specific surface area and porosity were higher in Cardoon than in Agroforestry or Elderberry, this experiment did not reveal significant differences among CH4 or other gas losses from the three biochars (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7). The results of this study show lower values than those in previous studies [8,19], which found that CH4 emissions from pig slurry were reduced by between 50 and 55% by the addition of biochar (2.5–5.0% w/w). This lack of a significant effect on CH4 losses may be related to the same reasons previously indicated for CO2 losses.
The cumulative C (CO2 + CH4) emissions (expressed in g m−2 or as % of total C applied) and the cumulative GWP emissions (expressed as CO2 eq. m−2) were not significantly different (p > 0.05) between all treatments, although numerically lower values were observed in treatments with chemical additives and higher values in treatments with biochars (Table 4).

4. Conclusions

During short-term storage, the results of this laboratory study indicated that the NH3 emissions were reduced by 58% by acidification and by 20% by biochars (Agroforestry, Cardoon, and Elderberry), while neutralization reduced this loss by only 12%. Nitrous oxide emissions were not reduced by chemical additives (Acidified, Alkalinized, and Neutralized), while this loss was reduced by 12% by the biochars. Carbon dioxide, CH4, and GWP emissions were not affected by the chemical additives and biochars. Furthermore, the absence of differences between the biochars may be related to their similar composition. Regarding the influence of the studied additives on NH3 losses, it can be concluded that acidification was the best mitigation measure and the biochars were quite similar due to their composition. Furthermore, neutralization had the advantage of sanitizing the slurry, but had a mild impact on NH3 preservation. More studies are needed under real storage conditions, evaluating isolated or combined additives, and considering all stages of slurry management to avoid pollution swapping.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.L.S.P.; methodology, J.L.S.P., A.P., F.M., D.F.W., H.T. and D.F.; software, J.L.S.P., A.P. and F.M.; validation, J.L.S.P., A.P., F.M., D.F.W., H.T. and D.F.; formal analysis, J.L.S.P., A.P. and F.M.; investigation, J.L.S.P., A.P., F.M., D.F.W., H.T. and D.F.; resources, J.L.S.P., A.P., F.M., D.F.W., H.T. and D.F.; data curation, J.L.S.P., A.P., F.M., D.F.W., H.T. and D.F.; writing—original draft preparation, J.L.S.P.; writing—review and editing, J.L.S.P.; visualization, J.L.S.P., A.P. and F.M.; supervision, J.L.S.P.; project administration, J.L.S.P.; funding acquisition, J.L.S.P., D.F.W., H.T. and D.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by National Funds from FCT—Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, under the project UIDB/04033/2020 (CITAB) and UID/AGR/04129/2020 (LEAF), and projects CLEANSLURRY PTDC/ASP-SOL/28769/2017 (FCT), WASTECLEAN PROJ/IPV/ID&I/019 (Polytechnic Institute of Viseu) and WASTE2VALUE PDR2020-1.0.1-FEADER-032314 (Ministério da Agricultura).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the technical assistance of Joel Viana and Daniel Gomes from the Polytechnic Institute of Viseu.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise.

References

  1. Uwizeye, A.; de Boer, I.J.M.; Opio, C.I.; Schulte, R.P.O.; Falcucci, A.; Tempio, G.; Teillard, F.; Casu, F.; Rulli, M.; Galloway, J.N.; et al. Nitrogen emissions along global livestock supply chains. Nat. Food 2020, 1, 437–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sajeev, E.P.M.; Winiwarter, W.; Amon, B. Greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from different stages of liquid manure management chains: Abatement options and emission interactions. J. Environ. Qual. 2018, 47, 30–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Hou, Y.; Velthof, G.L.; Lesschen, J.P.; Staritsky, I.G.; Oenema, O. Nutrient recovery and emissions of ammonia, nitrous oxide, and methane from animal manure in Europe: Effects of manure treatment technologies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 375–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Lee, C.; Hristov, A.N.; Cassidy, T.; Heyler, K. Nitrogen isotope fractionation and origin of ammonia nitrogen volatilized from cattle manure in simulated storage. Atmosphere 2011, 2, 256–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Thompson, R.B.; Meisinger, J.J. Management factors affecting ammonia volatilization from land-applied cattle slurry in the mid-Atlantic USA. J. Environ. Qual. 2002, 31, 1329–1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bittman, S.; Dedina, M.; Howard, C.M.; Oenema, O.; Sutton, M.A. (Eds.) Options for Ammonia Mitigation: Guidance from the UNECE Task Force on Reactive Nitrogen; Project Reference: CEH Project no. C04910; NERC/Centre for Ecology & Hydrology: Edinburgh, UK, 2014; 83p, Available online: http://www.clrtap-tfrn.org/sites/clrtap-tfrn.org/files/documents/AGD_final_file.pdf (accessed on 27 September 2022).
  7. Sommer, S.G.; Zhang, G.Q.; Bannink, A.; Chadwick, D.; Misselbrook, T.; Harrison, R.; Hutchings, N.J.; Menzi, H.; Monteny, G.J.; Ni, J.Q.; et al. Algorithms determining ammonia emission from buildings housing cattle and pigs and from manure stores. Adv. Agron. 2006, 89, 261–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Pereira, J.L.S.; Perdigão, A.; Tavares, A.; Silva, M.E.F.; Brás, I.; Wessel, D.F. Effects of the Addition of Different Additives before Mechanical Separation of Pig Slurry on Composition and Gaseous Emissions. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Petersen, S.O.; Blanchard, M.; Chadwick, D.; Del Prado, A.; Edouard, N.; Mosquera, J.; Sommer, S.G. Manure management for greenhouse gas mitigation. Animal 2013, 7, 266–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Medinets, S.; Skiba, U.; Rennenberg, H.; Butterbach-Bahl, K. A review of soil NO transformation: Associated processes and possible physiological significance on organisms. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2015, 80, 92–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Petersen, S.O. Greenhouse gas emissions from liquid dairy manure: Prediction and mitigation. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 6642–6654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Misselbrook, T.; Hunt, J.; Perazzolo, F.; Provolo, G. Greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from slurry storage: Impacts of temperature and potential mitigation through covering (pig slurry) or acidification (cattle slurry). J. Environ. Qual. 2016, 45, 1520–1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Montes, F.; Meinen, R.; Dell, C.; Rotz, A.; Hristov, A.N.; Oh, J.; Waghorn, G.; Gerber, P.J.; Henderson, B.; Makkar, H.P.S.; et al. Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: II. A review of manure management mitigation options. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 91, 5070–5094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Chianese, D.S.; Rotz, C.A.; Richard, T.L. Whole-farm greenhouse gas emissions: A review with application to a Pennsylvania dairy farm. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2009, 25, 431–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Fangueiro, D.; Hjorth, M.; Gioelli, F. Acidification of animal slurry—A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 149, 46–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Prado, J.; Chieppe, J.; Raymundo, A.; Fangueiro, D. Bio-acidification and enhanced crusting as an alternative to sulphuric acid addition to slurry to mitigate ammonia and greenhouse gases emissions during short term storage. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 263, 121443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ndegwa, P.M.; Hristov, A.N.; Arogo, J.; Sheffield, R.E. A review of ammonia emission mitigation techniques for concentrated animal feeding operations. Biosyst. Eng. 2008, 100, 453–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pereira, J.; Barneze, A.S.; Misselbrook, T.H.; Coutinho, J.; Moreira, N.; Trindade, H. Effects of a urease inhibitor and aluminium chloride alone or combined with a nitrification inhibitor on gaseous N emissions following soil application of cattle urine. Biosyst. Eng. 2013, 115, 396–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Pereira, J.L.S.; Figueiredo, V.; Pinto, A.; Pinto, A.F.M.A.; Silva, M.E.F.; Brás, I.; Perdigão, A.; Wessel, D.F. Effects of biochar and clinoptilolite on composition and gaseous emissions during the storage of separated liquid fraction of pig slurry. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Owusu-Twum, M.Y.; Polastre, A.; Subedi, R.; Santos, A.S.; Mendes Ferreira, L.M.; Coutinho, J.; Trindade, H. Gaseous emissions and modification of slurry composition during storage and after field application: Effect of slurry additives and mechanical separation. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 200, 416–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rodrigues, J.; Alvarenga, P.; Silva, A.C.; Brito, L.; Tavares, J.; Fangueiro, D. Animal Slurry Sanitization through pH Adjustment: Process Optimization and Impact on Slurry Characteristics. Agronomy 2021, 11, 517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pereira, J.L.S.; Perdigão, A.; Fangueiro, D. Evaluation of a Tomato Waste Biofilter for the Retention of Gaseous Losses from Pig Slurry Hygienization by pH Modification. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Soares, A.S.; Miranda, C.; Teixeira, C.A.; Coutinho, J.; Trindade, H.; Coelho, A.C. Impact of different treatments on Escherichia coli during storage of cattle slurry. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 236, 323–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Regueiro, I.; Coutinho, J.; Gioelli, F.; Balsari, P.; Dinuccio, E.; Fangueiro, D. Acidification of raw and co-digested pig slurries with alum before mechanical separation reduces gaseous emission during storage of solid and liquid fractions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 227, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. IPCC. Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; Calvo Buendia, E., Tanabe, K., Kranjc, A., Baasansuren, J., Fukuda, M., Ngarize, S., Osako, A., Pyrozhenko, Y., Shermanau, P., Federici, S., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019; Available online: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp (accessed on 27 September 2022).
  26. Rodrigues, J.; Fragoso, R.; Brito, L.; Fangueiro, D. Impact of Sandy Soil Amendment with Dairy Slurry Treated Through pH Adjustment on Nutrient and Coliform Leaching. SSRN 2022, 4084676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Awad, M.; Liu, Z.; Skalicky, M.; Dessoky, E.S.; Brestic, M.; Mbarki, S.; Rastogi, A.; EL Sabagh, A. Fractionation of Heavy Metals in Multi-Contaminated Soil Treated with Biochar Using the Sequential Extraction Procedure. Biomolecules 2021, 11, 448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Clough, T.J.; Condron, L.M.; Kammann, C.; Müller, C. A review of biochar and soil nitrogen dynamics. Agronomy 2013, 3, 275–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Nanda, S.; Dalai, A.K.; Berruti, F.; Kozinski, J.A. Biochar as an exceptional bioresource for energy, agronomy, carbon sequestration, activated carbon and specialty materials. Waste Biomass Valorization 2016, 7, 201–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kalus, K.; Koziel, J.A.; Opaliński, S. A review of biochar properties and their utilization in crop agriculture and livestock production. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Maurer, D.L.; Koziel, J.A.; Kalus, K.; Andersen, D.S.; Opalinski, S. Pilot-scale testing of non-activated biochar for swine manure treatment and mitigation of ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, odorous volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and greenhouse gas emissions. Sustainability 2017, 9, 929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Perdigão, A.; da Silva Pereira, J.L. Effects of Biochar in Soil and Water Remediation: A Review. In Biodegradation Technology of Organic and Inorganic Pollutants; Mendes, K.F., de Sousa, R., Mielke, K.C., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lefcourt, A.M.; Meisinger, J.J. Effect of adding alum or zeolite to dairy slurry on ammonia volatilization and chemical composition. J. Dairy Sci. 2001, 84, 1814–1821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kupper, T.; Häni, C.; Neftel, A.; Kincaid, C.; Bühler, M.; Amon, B.; VanderZaag, A. Ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions from slurry storage—A review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 300, 106963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Berg, W.; Brunsch, R.; Pazsiczki, I. Greenhouse gas emissions from covered slurry compared with uncovered during storage. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 112, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Dinuccio, E.; Berg, W.; Balsari, P. Gaseous emissions from the storage of untreated slurries and the fractions obtained after mechanical separation. Atmos. Environ. 2008, 42, 2448–2459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Moset, V.; Cambra-Lopez, M.; Estellés, F.; Torres, A.G.; Cerisuelo, A. Evolution of chemical composition and gas emission from aged pig slurry during outdoor storage with and without prior solid separation. Biosyst. Eng. 2012, 111, 2–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Fangueiro, D.; Surgy, S.; Coutinho, J.; Vasconcelos, E. Impact of cattle slurry acidification on carbon and nitrogen dynamics during storage and after soil incorporation. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2013, 176, 540–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dai, X.R.; Blanes-Vidal, V. Emissions of ammonia, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen sulfide from swine wastewater during and after acidification treatment: Effect of pH, mixing and aeration. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 115, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Czekała, W.; Malińska, K.; Cáceres, R.; Janczak, D.; Dach, J.; Lewicki, A. Co-composting of poultry manure mixtures amended with biochar—The effect of biochar on temperature and C-CO2 emission. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 200, 921–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sommer, S.G.; Petersen, S.O.; Sørensen, P.; Poulsen, H.D.; Møller, H.B. Methane and carbon dioxide emissions and nitrogen turnover during liquid manure storage. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2007, 78, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Petersen, S.O.; Andersen, A.J.; Eriksen, J. Effects of cattle slurry acidification on ammonia and methane evolution during storage. J. Environ. Qual. 2012, 41, 88–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Heděnec, P.; Rui, J.; Yao, M.; Li, J.; Lin, Q.; Frouz, J.; Li, X. Temporal response of soil prokaryotic communities to acidification and alkalization under laboratory conditions. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2018, 86, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 2. Composition of the treatments at the beginning of the experiment (mean ± standard deviation) (n = 3).
Table 2. Composition of the treatments at the beginning of the experiment (mean ± standard deviation) (n = 3).
TreatmentspHDMTCTNNH4+NO3NH4+/TNC/N
Control8.1 ± 0.1 d12.2 ± 0.3 ef41.2 ± 2.9 a5.8 ± 0.2 a3.4 ± 0.1 cd1.7 ± 0.5 a0.6 ± 0.1 e7.1 ± 0.5 a
Acidified5.0 ± 0.1 f13.8 ± 0.3 d40.7 ± 1.7 a5.8 ± 0.1 a3.3 ± 0.1 d0.8 ± 0.5 c0.6 ± 0.1 e7.0 ± 0.5 a
Alkalinized9.5 ± 0.1 a11.6 ± 0.4 f39.6 ± 1.8 a5.7 ± 0.2 a3.4 ± 0.1 d1.2 ± 0.5 b0.6 ± 0.1 e7.0 ± 0.5 a
Neutralized7.5 ± 0.1 e13.3 ± 0.7 de37.4 ± 4.2 a5.6 ± 0.3 a3.8 ± 0.1 c1.3 ± 0.5 b0.7 ± 0.1 d6.7 ± 0.5 a
Agroforestry8.5 ± 0.1 c58.9 ± 0.1 b42.9 ± 2.8 a5.5 ± 0.2 a4.7 ± 0.1 b1.7 ± 0.5 a0.8 ± 0.1 b7.7 ± 0.5 a
Cardoon9.0 ± 0.1 b62.9 ± 0.3 a42.5 ± 2.7 a5.6 ± 0.2 a4.5 ± 0.1 b1.7 ± 0.5 a0.8 ± 0.1 c7.5 ± 0.5 a
Elderberry8.6 ± 0.1 c43.8 ± 0.4 c41.4 ± 2.8 a5.6 ± 0.2 a5.2 ± 0.2 a1.8 ± 0.5 a0.9 ± 0.1 a7.4 ± 0.5 a
Note: n = 3: three replications per treatment. pH: pH (H2O); Dry matter: DM (g kg−1); Total C: TC (g kg−1); Total N: TN (g kg−1); NH4+: NH4+-N (g N kg−1); NO3: NO3N (mg N kg−1); NH4+/TN: NH4+: total N ratio; C/N: C:N ratio. Values presented with different lowercase letters within columns are significantly different (p < 0.05), as per a Tukey test.
Table 3. Mean values of daily (mg m−2 h−1) and total (mg m−2) ammonia fluxes observed in the treatments (mean ± standard deviation) (n = 3).
Table 3. Mean values of daily (mg m−2 h−1) and total (mg m−2) ammonia fluxes observed in the treatments (mean ± standard deviation) (n = 3).
TreatmentsDays of ExperimentTotal Flux
123–45–67–89–1112–1516–2021–2526–30∑0–30
Control806 ± 15 bc849 ± 25 bc678 ± 25 b501 ± 16 a361 ± 12 a380 ± 16 ab346 ± 15 a242 ± 1 ab137 ± 1 b110 ± 3 b256,397 ± 5725 b
Acidified203 ± 5 c214 ± 10 d193 ± 11 c168 ± 9 b145 ± 8 b147 ± 9 c149 ± 8 c127 ± 3 cd112 ± 3 b106 ± 1 bc107,638 ± 3624 c
Alkalinized6789 ± 229 a3851 ± 197 a1575 ± 168 a563 ± 89 a248 ± 31 ab155 ± 10 c 129 ± 3 c110 ± 1 d99 ± 1 b93 ± 1 cd538,707 ± 27,004 a
Neutralized1182 ± 90 b959 ± 67 b585 ± 50 bc378 ± 44 ab253 ± 31 ab227 ± 31 bc211 ± 28 bc 177 ± 25 bcd132 ± 25 b102 ± 14 bc221,383 ± 21,434 b
Agroforestry335 ± 44 c345 ± 25 cd363 ± 33 bc325 ± 22 ab305 ± 20 ab322 ± 28 ab261 ± 25 ab240 ± 30 ab119 ± 30 b82 ± 8 d178,492 ± 15,357 bc
Cardoon444 ± 18 c392 ± 15 cd396 ± 17 bc341 ± 14 ab324 ± 12 a353 ± 14 ab297 ± 12 ab338 ± 19 a228 ± 19 a165 ± 8 a228,547 ± 8836 b
Elderberry345 ± 47 c359 ± 39 cd407 ± 49 bc405 ± 50 ab404 ± 50 a390 ± 44 a266 ± 22 ab232 ± 18 abc139 ± 18 b111 ± 1 b200,799 ± 17,796 bc
Note: n = 3: three replications per treatment. For each gas, values presented with different lowercase letters within columns are significantly different (p < 0.05), as per a Tukey test.
Table 4. Cumulative nitrogen and carbon losses observed in the treatments (mean ± standard deviation) (n = 3).
Table 4. Cumulative nitrogen and carbon losses observed in the treatments (mean ± standard deviation) (n = 3).
TreatmentsNH3
(% Total N Applied)
N2O
(% Total N Applied)
N
(g m−2)
N
(% Total N Applied)
CO2
(% Total C Applied)
CH4
(% Total C Applied)
C
(g m−2)
C
(% Total C Applied)
GWP
(g CO2-eq. m−2)
Control31.4 ± 0.5 b0.7 ± 0.1 d215.9 ± 8.2 b32.1 ± 0.5 b78.0 ± 5.0 a1.7 ± 0.2 a3799.5 ± 43.0 abc79.7 ± 5.2 a19,008.6 ± 10.0 abc
Acidified13.3 ± 0.9 c0.7 ± 0.1 d93.4 ± 10.1 c14.0 ± 0.9 c75.8 ± 3.7 a1.6 ± 0.1 a3637.0 ± 83.7 cd77.4 ± 3.8 a18,198.6 ± 316.9 c
Alkalinized68.0 ± 6.9 a0.7 ± 0.1 bcd448.4 ± 77.1a 68.4 ± 6.9 a77.4 ± 3.3 a1.8 ± 0.1 a3625.2 ± 17.5 d79.3 ± 3.4 a18,525.2 ± 86.6 bc
Neutralized27.8 ± 4.3 b0.7 ± 0.1 cd187.0 ± 61.3 b28.7 ± 4.3 b84.8 ± 11.8 a1.8 ± 0.3 a3743.4 ± 119.9 bcd86.6 ± 12.0 a18,603.8 ± 311.2 bc
Agroforestry22.8 ± 3.0 bc0.8 ± 0.1 abc152.1 ± 44.1 bc23.7 ± 3.0 bc75.3 ± 4.0 a1.6 ± 0.1 a3811.6 ± 156.7 ab76.9 ± 4.1 a19,125.5 ± 466.5 abc
Cardoon29.2 ± 2.7 b0.8 ± 0.1 a193.5 ± 25.3 b29.8 ± 2.7 b78.6 ± 5.3 a1.7 ± 0.1 a3942.4 ± 83.7 a80.3 ± 5.5 a19,880.7 ± 217.7 a
Elderberry25.5 ± 3.5 bc0.8 ± 0.1 ab170.5 ± 51.1 bc26.5 ± 3.5 bc78.3 ± 4.1 a1.7 ± 0.1 a3829.5 ± 187.8 ab80.0 ± 4.2 a19277.9 ± 587.4 ab
Note: n = 3: three replications per treatment. Values presented with different lowercase letters within columns are significantly different (p < 0.05), as per a Tukey test. N: NH3 + N2O; C: CO2 + CH4; GWP: global warming potential expressed in CO2 equivalents (CO2 = 1, CH4 = 28, direct N2O = 265, and indirect N2O = 1% NH3-N volatilized).
Table 5. Mean values of daily (mg m−2 h−1) and total (mg m−2) nitrous oxide fluxes observed in the treatments (mean ± standard deviation) (n = 3).
Table 5. Mean values of daily (mg m−2 h−1) and total (mg m−2) nitrous oxide fluxes observed in the treatments (mean ± standard deviation) (n = 3).
TreatmentsDays of ExperimentTotal Flux
123–45–67–89–1112–1516–2021–2526–30∑0–30
Control11 ± 1 bc10 ± 1 b9 ± 1 b10 ± 1 c10 ± 1 c9 ± 1 b9 ± 1 b11 ± 1 ab10 ± 1 b9 ± 1 b7399 ± 39 c
Acidified10 ± 1 c10 ± 1 b10 ± 1 b10 ± 1 c10 ± 1 bc10 ± 1 b9 ± 1 b10 ± 1 b10 ± 1 ab10 ± 1 ab7492 ± 113 bc
Alkalinized8 ± 1 d8 ± 1 c9 ± 1 b10 ± 1 c10 ± 1 bc10 ± 1 b9 ± 1 b11 ± 1 ab11 ± 1 a10 ± 1 a7527 ± 20 bc
Neutralized10 ± 1 c9 ± 1 b9 ± 1 b9 ± 1 c10 ± 1 c9 ± 1 b9 ± 1 b10 ± 1 b10 ± 1 ab10 ± 1 ab7419 ± 69 c
Agroforestry11 ± 1 ab11 ± 1 a11 ± 1 a10 ± 1 b10 ± 1 abc11 ± 1 a11 ± 1 a11 ± 1 ab10 ± 1 b10 ± 1 ab7946 ± 115ab
Cardoon12 ± 1 a12 ± 1 a11 ± 1 a11 ± 1 a11 ± 1 a11 ± 1 a11 ± 1 a11 ± 1 a10 ± 1 ab10 ± 1 a8238 ± 45 a
Elderberry11 ± 1 a11 ± 1 a11 ± 1 a10 ± 1 ab10 ± 1 ab11 ± 1 a11 ± 1 a11 ± 1 ab10 ± 1 ab10 ± 1 ab8068 ± 161 a
Note: n = 3: three replications per treatment. For each gas, values presented with different lowercase letters within columns are significantly different (p < 0.05), as per a Tukey test.
Table 6. Mean values of daily (g m−2 h−1) and total (g m−2) carbon dioxide fluxes observed in the treatments (mean ± standard deviation) (n = 3).
Table 6. Mean values of daily (g m−2 h−1) and total (g m−2) carbon dioxide fluxes observed in the treatments (mean ± standard deviation) (n = 3).
TreatmentsDays of ExperimentTotal Flux
123–45–67–89–1112–1516–2021–2526–30∑0–30
Control19.0 ± 0.2 abc19.6 ± 0.2 a19.0 ± 0.2 a18.1 ± 0.1 a17.0 ± 0.1 b17.4 ± 0.1 b17.6 ± 0.1 a18.8 ± 0.1 ab17.6 ± 0.1 bc17.4 ± 0.1 b13,633.7 ± 50.1 abc
Acidified21.8 ± 1.6 a16.4 ± 0.1 d16.6 ± 0.1 b16.5 ± 0.1 b15.8 ± 0.1 c16.1 ± 0.1 c16.5 ± 0.1 b18.0 ± 0.1 ab17.5 ± 0.1 bc17.5 ± 0.1 b13,060.6 ± 82.7 cd
Alkalinized16.3 ± 0.1 c16.2 ± 0.1 d16.5 ± 0.1 b16.4 ± 0.1 b15.9 ± 0.1 c16.3 ± 0.1 bc16.7 ± 0.1 b18.2 ± 0.1 ab17.8 ± 0.1 abc17.7 ± 0.1 ab12,983.3 ± 16.0 d
Neutralized17.2 ± 0.2 bc17.4 ± 0.3 c18.1 ± 0.4 a17.7 ± 0.3 a16.7 ± 0.2 bc16.8 ± 0.2 bc17.2 ± 0.2 ab19.0 ± 0.1 a18.0 ± 0.1 ab17.6 ± 0.1 ab13,447.4 ± 123.6 bcd
Agroforestry19.1 ± 0.4 abc18.2 ± 0.3 bc18.4 ± 0.3 a17.7 ± 0.2 a18.4 ± 0.2 a19.6 ± 0.3 a17.6 ± 0.2 a18.0 ± 0.3 ab17.5 ± 0.1 c17.4 ± 0.1 b13,685.0 ± 158.9 ab
Cardoon19.8 ± 0.2 ab18.8 ± 0.1 ab19.0 ± 0.1 a18.2 ± 0.1 a18.8 ± 0.1 a20.2 ± 0.1 a18.0 ± 0.1 a18.8 ± 0.2 ab18.3 ± 0.1 a17.9 ± 0.1 a14,145.5 ± 86.2 a
Elderberry18.8 ± 0.3 abc18.4 ± 0.3 bc18.7 ± 0.4 a18.3 ± 0.4 a19.0 ± 0.4 a19.8 ± 0.4 a17.6 ± 0.2 a17.9 ± 0.3 b17.4 ± 0.1 c17.4 ± 0.1 b13,745.3 ± 189.5 ab
Note: n = 3: three replications per treatment. For each gas, values presented with different lowercase letters within columns are significantly different (p < 0.05), as per a Tukey test.
Table 7. Mean values of daily (mg m−2 h−1) and total (mg m−2) methane fluxes observed in the treatments (mean ± standard deviation) (n = 3).
Table 7. Mean values of daily (mg m−2 h−1) and total (mg m−2) methane fluxes observed in the treatments (mean ± standard deviation) (n = 3).
TreatmentsDays of ExperimentTotal Flux
123–45–67–89–1112–1516–2021–2526–30∑0–30
Control112 ± 1 c164 ± 2 bc164 ± 1 bc153 ± 1 b226 ± 24 a129 ± 1 b159 ± 1 a171 ± 9 a137 ± 1 b173 ± 1 b121,827 ± 1924 ab
Acidified86 ± 4 c136 ± 4 d146 ± 3 c141 ± 3 b148 ± 1 b122 ± 2 b153 ± 3 ab142 ± 4 ab112 ± 5 ab190 ± 6 a112,559 ± 2640 b
Alkalinized266 ± 7 a227 ± 6 a177 ± 5 ab148 ± 2 b152 ± 1 b124 ± 1 b156 ± 1 a149 ± 1 ab99 ± 1 ab198 ± 1 a126,449 ± 1023 ab
Neutralized109 ± 4 c143 ± 4 cd148 ± 3 c141 ± 2 b159 ± 3 b120 ± 1 b152 ± 2 ab148 ± 1 ab132 ± 1 ab186 ± 2 ab113,846 ± 1391 ab
Agroforestry156 ± 6 b183 ± 6 b184 ± 7 ab181 ± 4 a192 ± 3 ab199 ± 4 a140 ± 2 c128 ± 5 b119 ± 3 ab140 ± 2 c119,022 ± 2860 ab
Cardoon167 ± 2 b190 ± 2 b197 ± 2 a193 ± 1 a201 ± 1 ab211 ± 1 a146 ± 1 bc140 ± 2 b228 ± 1 a148 ± 1 c126,765 ± 985 a
Elderberry154 ± 6 b178 ± 6 b187 ± 8 ab190 ± 6 a199 ± 6 ab205 ± 7 a142 ± 3 c130 ± 5 b139 ± 4 ab142 ± 3 c121,144 ± 3843 ab
Note: n = 3: three replications per treatment. For each gas, values presented with different lowercase letters within columns are significantly different (p < 0.05), as per the Tukey test.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pereira, J.L.S.; Perdigão, A.; Marques, F.; Wessel, D.F.; Trindade, H.; Fangueiro, D. Mitigating Ammonia and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Stored Pig Slurry Using Chemical Additives and Biochars. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2744. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12112744

AMA Style

Pereira JLS, Perdigão A, Marques F, Wessel DF, Trindade H, Fangueiro D. Mitigating Ammonia and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Stored Pig Slurry Using Chemical Additives and Biochars. Agronomy. 2022; 12(11):2744. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12112744

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pereira, José L. S., Adelaide Perdigão, Francisco Marques, Dulcineia F. Wessel, Henrique Trindade, and David Fangueiro. 2022. "Mitigating Ammonia and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Stored Pig Slurry Using Chemical Additives and Biochars" Agronomy 12, no. 11: 2744. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12112744

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop