Next Article in Journal
Climatological Large-Scale Circulation Patterns over The Middle Americas Region
Next Article in Special Issue
Ammonia Emissions from a Western Open-Lot Dairy
Previous Article in Journal
Retrofit Strategies for Energy Efficiency of Historic Urban Fabric in Mediterranean Climate
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of Treated Manure Conditions on Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions from a Swine Finishing Barn Equipped with Semicontinuous Pit Recharge System in Summer
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Atmosphere
Volume 11
Issue 7
10.3390/atmos11070743
atmosphere-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Influence of the Mineral–Microbial Deodorizing Preparation on Ammonia Emission and Growth Performance in Turkey Production

by
Remigiusz Gałęcki
1,*,
Michał Dąbrowski
1,
Tadeusz Bakuła
1,
Kazimierz Obremski
1,
Mirosław Baranowski
1,
Adriana Nowak
2 and
Beata Gutarowska
2
1
Department of Veterinary Prevention and Feed Hygiene, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, 10-718 Olsztyn, Poland
2
Department of Environmental Biotechnology, Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Science, Lodz University of Technology, 90-924 Łódź, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Atmosphere 2020, 11(7), 743; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11070743
Submission received: 8 May 2020 / Revised: 12 June 2020 / Accepted: 10 July 2020 / Published: 13 July 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Livestock Odor and Air Quality)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In our previous in vitro research and also in laying hen production, attempts were made to minimise ammonia emissions in poultry houses with the use of Deodoric® biopreparation. The objective of the present research was to evaluate the influence of the Deodoric® on ammonia (NH3) emission and turkey growth performance in a semi-industrial production system. Significant differences in NH3 emission (p-value < 0.001), body weight (p-value < 0.001) and relative humidity (p-value < 0.001) were observed between the control group (C) and the experimental group (E) where Deodoric® was applied. In group C, an increase in ammonia concentration in air could have contributed to a decrease in the body weight of turkeys, but the above correlation was not observed in group E. In the control group, a relatively strong correlation between NH3 emission and temperature (p-value = 0.0009; r = 0.74) and moderate correlations between NH3 emission vs. relative humidity (p-value = 0.01; r = 0.59), air speed (p-value = 0.015; r = 0.60) and cooling (p-value = 0.005; r = 0.66) were noted. Studied correlations were not observed in group E. The preparation did not affect microbial levels in manure or body samples. Throughout the experiment, significant differences in the number of mesophilic bacteria (for the model: F = 46.14, p-value = 0.09; for mesophilic microorganisms: F = 3.29, p-value = 0.045) and Campylobacter spp. (for the model: F = 24.96, p-value = 0.008; for Campylobacter spp.: F = 0.25, p-value = 0.64) were not observed between group C and group E. The administration of Deodoric® to manure decreased NH3 concentration in the air and increased weight gains in the experimental group of turkeys relative to group C. Preparation may be applied in poultry farms to improve poultry farming conditions.

1. Introduction

Agricultural production, including farming and animal breeding, can be a source of high emission of odorous gases in air. Both animal-related and odorous gases are closely related to manure production. Manure is responsible for greenhouse gases and odorous gases [1]. Odorous substances include aldehydes, ketones, sulphur compounds and nitrogen compounds, including ammonia. According to research, ammonia (NH3) emission is most significantly correlated with the emission of odorous gases [2,3]. Livestock manures contain N in both organic (proteins, amino polysaccharides, and nucleic acids) and inorganic forms. The conversion of organic nitrogen to NH3 is mediated by a host of enzymes produced by heterotrophic microbes [4].
Ammonia has been implicated in air, soil, and water degradation [5]. Its control is currently an important problem due to environmental protection and cost-effectiveness [6]. The emission and composition of odorous substances are determined by many factors, including biofilm, sanitary conditions and nutrition (protein intake) [3]. Currently, numerous provisions referring to the problem of ammonia as an important air pollutant have been introduced in Europe [7,8,9,10,11].
Global ammonia emissions in 1990 were estimated at 54 Tg N yr−1, and the most important emitters were China, India and Europe [12]. In 2008, it was estimated that the global NH3 emission from agricultural systems is 27–38 Tg N yr−1 [13]. Since 1990 in Europe, the emissions have been reduced over time in countries; however, currently, we are observing stagnation [14]. The agricultural sector remains the major source of NH3 emissions; despite emissions falling by 26% since 1990, agriculture contributed 96% of total emissions in 1990, and 94% in 2011 [14]. The majority of NH3 in the atmosphere arises from livestock manure [15]. Animal excreta are responsible for around 80% of ammonia emissions in agriculture [16]. Most of the emissions from livestock production come from animal houses and storage systems (31–55%); smaller contributions come from the spreading of animal manure (23–38%) and grazing animals (17–37%) [13,15]. Livestock farms (cattle and pigs) are regarded as the main sources of ammonia in the agricultural sector [17,18,19]. Livestock farming is responsible for around 75% of global NH3 emissions that occur at all stages of manure production and animal breeding in Europe [3,20]. In example, poultry rearing produces approximately 6% of the total NH3 emissions in the air in Germany [21]. Van der Hoek [16] calculated that one turkey emits 0.92 kg NH3 animal−1 yr−1. Other studies revealed that the average daily mean emission rate of ammonia by one laying hen was 0.95 g [22]. According to the European Economic and Social Committee, global ammonia emissions will continue to increase due to population growth and, consequently, increased animal production. [23] In 2016, the European Union introduced the National Emission Ceilings Directive which requires that the EU countries must submit an annual NH3 emission. This will ensure better monitoring of the current problem. The majority of the reduction in NH3 emissions is due to the combination of reduced livestock numbers across Europe (especially cattle) and the lower use of nitrogenous fertilisers. Despite the above, this issue has not yet been properly resolved in poultry breeding, which is now considered as the future of the European agricultural sector, as evidenced by the continuous increase in the number of poultry flocks.
Previous studies revealed that ammonia increases susceptibility to disease and inhibits poultry growth [24,25,26]. According to many studies, odorous substances, including ammonia, pose a threat to the environment, humans and animals, and therefore future studies should concentrate on decreasing odorous gas emissions [27,28,29,30,31,32]. Measures aiming to decrease and control ammonia concentration should play an important role in the protection of public health and should also be controlled to protect the health of farm personnel [33,34]. Rylander and Carvalheiro [35] reported that farm employees are at increased risk of respiratory infections, chronic bronchitis and toxic pneumonia. The negative effects of NH3 on cells cultures were observed by Nowak et al. [31,32]. In the cited study, odorous gases, including ammonia, exerted an adverse influence on chicken LMH cells [31,32]. Moreover, ammonia combined with other factors, such as dust, may negatively affect the human and animal respiratory system [27,28,29,30]. Moreover, NH3 reacts with acidic compounds in atmosphere and forms PM2.5 particles that cause lung diseases [15,36]. In the European Union, for each animal species kept indoors, the NH3 threshold is 20 ppm [37]. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists set the human threshold exposure limit to ammonia concentration in air of 35 ppm at 15 min [38]. Exposure to ammonia concentration of 300 ppm in air can be hazardous to human health and may be life threatening [39]. In studies of other poultry species, high ammonia emission compromised body weight in chickens [39,40,41,42,43]. For this reason, high ammonia concentration may cause financial losses in poultry production [44]. Exposure to ammonia can prolong the rearing period due to a higher feed conversion ratio. Therefore, innovative solutions in environmental and public health protection are required to promote the development of modern poultry farming that guarantees high levels of security for farm employees, the environment and the communities residing in the vicinity of poultry farms. Currently, there is an increase in awareness of the effects of atmospheric ammonia pollution, especially in relation to human health and animal production [45].
New solutions should be developed to address the problem of ammonia emissions in poultry houses. Whyte stated that gas and dust emissions in animal housing can be controlled only partially [46]. Currently, ammonia contamination in animal farms is regulated mainly by biofilters [47], which are expensive and not always reliable. Chemical substances for decreasing ammonia concentration have been proposed, including phosphoric acid (H3PO4), ferrous sulphate heptahydrate (FeSO4*7H2O) and alum [Al2(SO4)3*18H2O] [48,49,50,51], but they may lead to the excessive accumulation of potentially toxic substances in the environment. Recently, Anderson et al. [52] developed new litter amendment made from alum mud, bauxite, and sulfuric acid which may be used as an effective alternative litter amendment for reducing NH3 emissions from poultry litter. According to Santoso et al. [53], the supplementation of dried Bacillus subtilis cultures in poultry diet significantly decreased NH3 emission in poultry houses. Attempts have also been made to control ammonia emissions with the use of innovative products, such as biochar or ammonia-oxidizing bacteria [54,55].
A microbiological-mineral preparation for deodorization, Deodoric®, was formulated to solve the problem of high NH3 concentration in the air in poultry farms. In our previous studies, attempts were made to minimize odour emissions at poultry farms using Deodoric®. Deodorizing preparation was prepared according to the procedure described by Borowski et al. [56]. Biopreparation consists of spray-dried microcapsules with six active bacterial strains. The deodorizing biopreparation may inhibit the growth of opportunistic pathogens in poultry litter [57]. The product also decreases the emission of odorous gases, including indole, pyridine, hydrogen sulphide hydrocarbons, aldehydes and phenols. The tested biopreparation was microbiologically stable throughout the previous experiments [58]. Under laboratory conditions, odorous compounds in exhaust air, especially ammonia, was reduced by more than 90% after 2 days.
The experiment presented in this manuscript was carried out as part of a three-year project (a mineral-microbial preparation for the removal of odorous compounds from poultry production premises) that was conducted in several stages.
This article is a continuation of studies carried out in laboratory and model conditions. Samples of poultry litter (2–5 kg) were evaluated under laboratory conditions (including the methodology of application, doses, investigation of odorous gases inhibition, the influence of the sorbent, determination of the Deodoric’s composition and microbiological research). Five animals per experimental and control group were studied under model conditions in three repetitions (this stage of research involved the evaluation of odorous gases decrease, doses and application methods, the influence of the sorbent, an assessment of microclimate conditions and microbiological analyses).
The current article is a continuation of the research conducted in the industrial scale in poultry, carried out on laying hens. However, research on a different production group and a different species of poultry is needed due to different technologies in animal production. [59]
The objective of this research was to investigate the influence of the mineral-microbial preparation on NH3 concentration, emission and final body weight of turkeys in a semi-industrial production system.

2. Experiments

2.1. Broiler Turkeys and Production Premisses

On 20 December 2016, 10-week-old female Big-6 broiler turkeys (commercial turkey breed- Hybrid Converter; producer- Hybrid Turkey, Olsztyn, Poland) were transported from an industrial farm to the Department of Avian Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine of the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn. This unit has a specialized pavilion for proper animal keeping. The animals were handled in accordance with the guidelines for Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine at the University Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn and the National Research Council [60]. The experiment was performed in two separated turkey houses with an area of 20 m2 each, and it lasted 88 days. On 22 March 2017, turkeys were euthanized in the specialized abattoir (the Department of Commodity Science and Animal Improvement, Faculty of Animal Bioengineering of the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn).
Turkeys were divided into the experimental group (E) and control group (C), which consisted of 50 birds each. Turkeys were fed specialized diets ad libitum from automatic feeders with free access to water. Birds received a complete feed (composition: crude protein 19.20%, oils and crude fats 4.20%, crude fiber 3.50%, raw ash 5.70%, lysine 1.17%, methionine 0.44%, calcium 1.00%, phosphorus 0.57%, sodium 0.16%). Microclimate conditions were operated by automatic climate controller Stienen MFC-3VAD (Stienen Bedrijfselektronica b.v., Nederweert, Netherland). This device has minimum ventilation functionality. The fans are switched on and off according to a time-proportional minimum (duty cycle) as and when ventilation requirements decrease. These controllers also have a voltage free heating contact. The respective device parameters were set to: temperature = 21 °C; heating = -2 ΔT °C; minimum fan speed = 10%; maximum fan speed = 80%; bandwidth ventilation = 4 °C; ventilation mode: automatic to given parameters; and were set as identical in both turkey houses. Additionally, ventilation system equipped with HEPA filters and enabling maintaining a pressure cascade in corridors, bird boxes and sanitary locks, which excludes the possibility of cross-contamination of experimental rooms. The volume flow rate was controlled by device MFC-VAD, in the range 175–220 m3 h−1 (calculation based on ventilator volume flow and minimum/maximum fan speed), what corresponds to around 3 times the amount of air exchange per 1 hour in the room. Both rooms had the same ventilation rate.
The birds were kept on shredded dry wheat straw litter (depth—20 cm). The initial straw layer was spread on a clean floor. Dry wheat straw humidity was estimated at about 9%. Weekly, each turkey house was supplied with the similar amount of fresh wheat straw.

2.2. Deodoric® Biopreparation

Every week, the deodorizing biopreparation was applied manually on the top of the litter in the experimental poultry house in the amount of 3.6 kg based on the following calculations: 5 turkeys per m2 produce around 1.3 kg of excreta daily (adult individuals) and 9.0 kg of excreta weekly per m2. Five grams of dried material per 500 g of excreta (effective dose determined in a laboratory experiment), i.e., 90 g of dried material per week/m2, 90 g of sorbent + 90 g of dried material = 180 g of Deodoric®/week/m2; 20 m2 × 180 g = 3600 g = 3.6 kg. The biopreparation was composed of two parts. The first part was dried material containing a mixture of the following microorganisms: Lactobacillus plantarum (ŁOCK 0996), Leuconostoc mesenteroides (ŁOCK 0964) Bacillus megaterium (ŁOCK 0963) Bacillus subtilis (ŁOCK 0962) and Pseudomonas fluorescens (ŁOCK 0961), which was spray dried with trehalase (5% w/v) and maltodextrin (Maltodextrin N 15% w/v; DE = 7–13, HORTIMEX Sp. z o. o.). The second part was mineral sorbent composed of perlite (15%) and bentonite (85%) (1:1 v/v).

2.3. Measurements

Once a week, the birds were individually weighed from 24 December 2016 until the end of the experiment (22 March 2017). In groups C and E, ammonia emission was measured in the morning (8.00 a.m.) and afternoon (3.00 p.m.) from the first day of Deodoric® application until the end of the experiment. Selected microclimate parameters were monitored in both poultry houses: relative humidity and temperature were measured with the ST-8820 Multi-Function Environment Meter (CEM, Shenzhen, China). This has semiconductor sensors in the probe for humidity and ambient temperature measurements. Air speed and cooling were determined with Hill’s dry kata-thermometer (Technical and Laboratory Glass Manufacturing Plant GOMAR, Warsaw, Poland) based of the protocols described by Hill et al. and Mochida [42,43]; NH3 concentration in air was measured with the Dräger X-am® 5000 gas detector (Drägerwerk AG and Co. KGaA, Lübeck, Germany), whose operation is based on electrochemical sensors. The devices had been validated by the manufacturers before the experiment. Measurements were performed 2 weeks before the application of Deodoric® in order to show possible differences that could disturb the result and from the first day of Deodoric® application until the end of the experiment. Measurements were always made at the height of the torso of the animals, in the same place indoors. The methodology of conducted microclimate parameters measurements was based on cited publications [61,62,63,64,65] and industry standard BN86/880-03. The ventilation amplitude varied slightly (175–220 m3 h−1), and therefore the concentration of ammonia during the experiment also did not change significantly. A 3-fold measurement was carried out twice a day at constant times. This approach meets the conditions of quasi-continuous measurements. NH3 emission was calculated using the formula E = C V; where C stated for NH3 concentration, and to the V was volume flow rate (assuming an average volume flow rate of 197.5 m3 h−1). Litter humidity measurements were carried out at 1, 7 day and 14 day after putting birds in turkey houses, by drying to constant dry mass using a Mac110NH moisture analyzer (Radwag, Radom, Poland). The litter had an initial humidity of approximately 63%. The final humidity of litter in group C was 57% and in group E was 77%.

2.4. Bacteriological Identification Methods

Swabs from the feet, sternum, beak, trachea and air sack were collected for microbiological examinations upon slaughter. Twenty samples from each body area were transported to the bacteriological laboratory at the Department of Microbiology and Clinical Immunology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine. A detailed description of the methodology may be found in a previous publication [59].

2.5. Quantitative Microbiological Analyses

Samples of litter for microbiological examination were collected from 5 different locations in every experimental pen. The collected litter was pooled to obtain representative laboratory samples. Litter for microbiological analyses was collected 5 times at 20-day intervals (1–2 January, 2—22 January, 3—11 February, 4—3 March and 5—21 March) Turkey manure samples of 10 g each were placed in an Erlenmeyer flask containing 90 cm3 of 0.85% NaCl and shaken on a shaker for 15 min. A detailed description of the methodology may be found in a previous publication [59].

2.6. Statistical Analysis

The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was preceded by Bartlett’s test for homogeneity of variance. Statistically significant differences in ammonia, body weight, microclimate parameters, counts of mesophilic microorganisms and Campylobacter spp. concentration between group C and group E were determined by repeated measures ANOVA. An r-Pearson correlation coefficient was created to evaluate the correlations between microclimate parameters turkeys age, and NH3 emission. Daily counts of mesophilic microorganisms and Campylobacter spp. differences isolated from litter were analyzed using Student’s t-test for independent samples. Standard deviation (SD), 95% confidence interval (CI 95%), mode (MO), median (ME) and variance (V) were also defined. Differences were considered significant at p-value < 0.05. Data were processed statistically in the Statistica 13.1 program with a medical application.

3. Results

Before the application of Deodoric®, differences in the microclimate conditions between group E and group C, including relative humidity (p-value = 0.71), temperature (p-value = 0.55), air speed (p-value = 0.54) and cooling (p-value = 0.53), were not observed.
The final mean slaughter weight of turkeys was 12.41 kg in group C and 13.16 kg in group E. The average percentage of NH3 reduction over the entire rearing period reached 43.63% (SD = 14.57). The measured NH3 emission and selected microclimate parameters throughout the entire experiment are presented in Table 1.
Significant differences in NH3 concentration in air (for the model: F = 297.58, p-value < 0.000001; for NH3 emission: F = 12.97, p-value = 0.0013), body weight (for the model: F = 2073.95, p-value < 0.000001; for body weight: F = 154.39, p-value= 0.042) and relative humidity (for the model: F = 127.11, p-value < 0.000001; for relative humidity: F = 23.55, p-value = 0.003) were demonstrated between group C and group E. Significant differences in temperature (for the model: F = 54.77, p-value = 0.00015; for temperature: F = 11.21, p-value = 0.11), air speed (for the model: F = 14.29, p-value = 0.0061; for air speed: F = 8.35, p-value = 0.098) and cooling (for the model: F = 2073.95, p-value = 0.0022; for cooling: F = 5.63, p-value = 0.44) were not observed between the experimental and control group. The litter humidity in group C on 1 day was 63% (SD = 18), after 7 days 79% (SD = 14), and after 14 days 77% (SD = 16). The litter humidity in group E on 1 day was 64% (SD = 18), after 7 days 79% (SD = 14), after 14 days (7 days after biopreparation application) was 57% (SD = 16). Values varied due to different spaces in the turkey houses, i.e., the humidity was very high near water troughs, and lower at a distance.
In group C, a relatively strong correlation between NH3 concentration and temperature and moderate correlations between NH3 concentration vs. relative humidity, air speed and cooling were noted. No significant differences were noted between NH3 concentration and age. In group E, significant linear relationships between NH3 concentration vs. temperature, relative humidity, air, cooling and age were not found. Detailed correlations data are shown in Table 2.
A statistical analysis of the number of changes in the mesophilic microorganisms isolated from litter did not reveal significant differences between groups on different collection dates (for the model: F = 46.14, p-value = 0.09; for mesophilic microorganisms: F = 3.29, p-value = 0.045). The number of mesophilic bacteria increased significantly in both groups on the last sampling date (Figure 1).
However, significant changes in Campylobacter spp. number were not found for the entire model (for the model: F = 24.96, p-value = 0.008; for Campylobacter spp.: F = 0.25, p-value = 0.64). The results of the k-nearest neighbours’ algorithm in microbiological tests indicate that the deviations in mesophilic bacteria number on day 78 and in Campylobacter spp. number on day 20 should be regarded as a statistical anomaly (Figure 2).
A qualitative analysis of microbiological swabs collected from selected areas of the body and the respiratory tract did not reveal changes in the composition of commensal microbiota relative to the control group. In group E and group C, Escherichia coli and Proteus vulgaris were identified in air sacs; E. coli, P. mirabilis and Enterococcus spp. were detected in the trachea; E. coli and P. mirabilis were identified in beaks; E. coli, P. mirabilis and Campylobacter jejuni were detected on feet; E. coli and P. mirabilis were detected on the sternum.

4. Discussion

Several commercialized bioactive preparations for decreasing ammonia concentration in air in poultry houses have been developed to date. Deodoric® during animal rearing can be directly applied to the litter, as demonstrated by previous studies performed under laboratory conditions and by the tests conducted in poultry houses in a pilot plant (present study). Previous studies analysing the Deodoric composition were carried out to evaluate the mechanisms of action of the mineral and microbial components of the preparation [66]. Ammonia emission is an important determinant of housing conditions, and it may have a greater impact on animal welfare than stocking density [67]. For this reason, in this study, attempts were made to improve animal welfare by decreasing ammonia concentration in turkey houses. The results of published studies investigating the impact of the sorbent without microorganisms demonstrate that the sorbent mainly promoted manure drying, but also decreased odorant concentration by approximately 30–70%, depending on the compound. The microorganisms present in the biopreparation exerted an antagonistic effect on manure microbiota and decreased odorant emission by 20–40%, depending on the compound. In the present study, the average difference in NH3 concentration between the C group and the E group was 43.63%. Significant differences between group C and group E in NH3 concentration in air and relative humidity were noted. The NH3 concentrations in group C were high compared to literature values [19], which could be due to the period of research (winter), which resulted in an increased concentration of ammonia in the air in turkey houses. Our study suggests that the Deodoric® preparation significantly influenced relative humidity which is mainly responsible for NH3 concentration in air. Previous studies on laying hens and current studies on turkey broilers, have similar conclusions including reduction in odorants emission, improvement of zootechnical conditions, drying of litter) [59]. This confirms the effectiveness of the preparation in other species and various technological groups. A similar mechanism of action is also observable.
In previous studies, the analysed preparation also improved microclimate parameters in livestock facilities. The adverse effects of ammonia on poultry performance have been demonstrated in the literature [26,39,68]. Deaton et al. [69] reported that exposure to 200 ppm of NH3 over 17 days significantly inhibited poultry performance. It may suggest that the tested preparation could minimise ammonia’s adverse impact on animal health and welfare.
High ammonia concentration may also increase the prevalence of respiratory diseases, including Newcastle disease and mycoplasmosis [24,26,70,71,72]. In previous studies, Deodoric® inhibited potentially pathogenic microorganisms. Interestingly, the tested biopreparation also modified the microbiota of broiler turkeys. Considerable fluctuations in Campylobacter spp. counts were noted throughout the entire experiment in both groups. A significant reduction in Campylobacter spp. counts was observed in group E only on day 20. However, no such observations were made in manure samples analysed on different dates. The noted decrease could be attributed to uneven distribution of Deodoric® in the sampling area. This observation is validated by the results of our previous in vitro study [57], which suggests that the dose of the preparation should be increased to inhibit bacterial growth. The obtained microbiological results may indicate that the preparation stabilizes the environment by preventing the rapid development of the studied microorganisms. As a result, the animals’ innate and acquired immune responses are not triggered. It is also worth of noticing that the tested biopreparation did not affect the counts of mesophilic bacteria in turkey microbiota. The above was confirmed by microbiological tests of samples from different parts of the body. Throughout the experiment, total mesophilic counts were comparable in both groups. However, on the last sampling date, the bacterial population increased significantly in both groups relative to previous analytical dates. The above could be attributed to an increase in body weights and, consequently, greater litter compaction in the experimental pens. High stocking could deplete the buffer capacity of the environment and contribute to the rapid proliferation of the examined bacteria. A qualitative analysis of respiratory swabs and samples collected from studied body areas did not reveal changes in local microbiota. The same microorganisms were identified in the remaining areas of the body in both groups. The lack of differences between research groups indicate that the biopreparation did not interfere with microbial stability, thus maintaining the activity of local immunological system (skin-associated lymphoid tissues, SALT; mucosa-associated lymphatic tissue, MALT) at the physiological level. The applied preparation had a stabilizing effect on the microbiological environment of turkeys without affecting the body’s microbiota. Deodoric® may also limit the losses associated with unnecessary activation of the immune system.
The feeding of birds may also affect NH3 concentration in the air. Nahm [73] suggested that reductions in environmental nitrogen and NH3 pollution caused by poultry farms can be achieved through improved diet formulation based on available nutrients in the ingredients, reducing crude protein levels and adding synthetic amino acids or with enzyme supplementation. Silaban et al. [74], found that reducing dietary crude protein to 15% in laying hens lowered NH3. The mentioned research indicates that the feed used by us during the experiment could not have a significant influence on the ammonia reduction in group C and E.
Previous research demonstrated that in poultry houses, selected microclimate parameters directly affect ammonia concentration [75,76,77,78,79]. Nimmermark and Gustafsson [75] demonstrated that the control of relative humidity and temperature may inhibit NH3 emissions and its concentration in the air. Elliott and Collins [76] stated that NH3 emission is mainly influenced by temperature, relative humidity and litter pH. According to Ni [77], NH3 concentration in the air is strongly corelated with the temperature of the manure or air and the air velocity on the manure surface. Several other studies have also confirmed dependencies between NH3 volatilization vs. pH level of manure, relative humidity, ventilation rate and the temperature [78,79]. The results of these studies reveal a similar linear relationship between NH3 concentration vs. relative humidity and temperature in group C and a lack of statistically significant correlations between measured microclimate parameters and the NH3 concentration in air in group E. These data indicate that the Deodoric® minimised the relationships between ammonia emission and microclimate conditions. Moreover, the lack of any statistically significant correlations between NH3 concentration in the air and cooling/air speed indicates that room ventilation in group E did not interfere with our results. No linear relationships in group E may be indicated by tested biopreparation characteristics, including a decrease in pH, microbial competition for biological compounds present in litter and manure drying. The tested preparation due to its properties may also have an impact on dry matter content in turkey litter. It should be mentioned that even small variations in the dry matter content of litter can have an impact on reducing ammonia emission, which can be achieved by maintaining the poultry litter dry matter percentage below 60–70% [80,81]. Generally, a higher dry matter content of litter slows down the volatilization of ammonia [80]. In example, Kroodsma et al. [82] showed an inverse relationship between the amount of manure ammonia loss and the dry matter content.
Due to the fact that increased population and industrial activities have caused negative environmental impacts worldwide, the effectiveness of various strategies to reduce greenhouse gases emissions deserves special attention [83]. In previous studies, we performed a detailed analysis of volatile odor compounds in laboratory conditions [58]; however, we have not conducted studies on the Deodoric® influence on greenhouse gas emissions. In studies in animal rooms (laying hens and broilers) after using the Deodoric® preparation, no effect on CO2 reduction was observed. We cannot say whether Deodoric® will positively or negatively affect the emission of these gases, and therefore this aspect requires further research.

5. Conclusions

The presented results give a tentative indication that this product has an impact on ammonia release in turkey houses. The studied product may decrease the adverse health consequences of ammonia emissions, which may improve the safety of farm personnel. Further research should focus on the effect of Deodoric® doses on the immune and respiratory systems of birds. Toxicological tests should also be conducted to determine the safety of high doses of the preparation. However, the results of this study indicate that Deodoric® can be safely used in the described doses in turkey farms to increase profits and to improve poultry health, animal welfare and growth performance.

Author Contributions

R.G. and T.B. conceived, and performed the experiments, analysed the data, wrote the paper and corrected the manuscript; M.D. and K.O. conceived, performed the experiments and analysed the data; M.B. analysed the data; A.N. analysed the data; T.B. and B.G. designed and developed the research concept. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The study was funded by the Polish National Centre for Research and Development as part of the project entitled “Innovative deodorizing biopreparation for poultry farmhouses”, grant No. PBS2/B8/14/2014. Project financially co-supported by Minister of Science and Higher Education in the range of the program entitled “Regional Initiative of Excellence” for the years 2019–2022, Project No. 010/RID/2018/19, amount of funding 12.000.000 PLN.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Leytem, A.B.; Dungan, R.S.; Bjorneberg, D.L.; Koehn, A.C. Greenhouse Gas and Ammonia Emissions from an Open-Freestall Dairy in Southern Idaho. J. Environ. Qual. 2013, 42, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Miner, J.R. Nuisance concerns and odor control. J. Dairy Sci. 1997, 80, 2667–2672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lacey, R.; Mukhtar, S.; Carey, J.B.; Ullman, J.L. A Review of Literature Concerning Odors, Ammonia, and Dust from Broiler Production Facilities: 1. Odor Concentrations and Emissions. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2004, 13, 500–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. He, Z.; Pagliari, P.H.; Waldrip, H.M. Applied and Environmental Chemistry of Animal Manure: A Review. Pedosphere 2016, 26, 779–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. He, Z. Environmental Chemistry of Animal Manure; Nova Science Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 458–459. [Google Scholar]
  6. Jacobsen, B.H.; Latacz-Lohmann, U.; Luesink, H.; Michels, R.; Ståhl, L. Costs of regulating ammonia emissions from livestock farms near Natura 2000 areas-analyses of case farms from Germany, Netherlands and Denmark. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 246, 897–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Clean Air Directive. Directive 2016/2284/EU Clean Air Program. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/clean_air/index.htm (accessed on 20 April 2020).
  8. European Economic Community. Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for Intensive Rearing of Poultry and Pigs. JRC Science for Policy Report. 2017. Available online: http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/BREF/IRPP/JRC107189_IRPP_Bref_2017_published.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2020).
  9. European Economic Community. Clean Air Program. The European Commission. 2013. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/clean_air/index.htm (accessed on 20 April 2020).
  10. European Economic Community. Facts Figures on Agriculture Reductions as Proposed under the Commission’s NECD Proposal. 2015. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pdf/review/Facts%20and%20figures%20agriculture%20under%20the%20NEC.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2020).
  11. UNEC. Framework Code for Good Agricultural Practice for Reducing Ammonia Emissions; United Nations Economic Commission for Europe; European Commission: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bouwman, A.F.; Lee, D.S.; Asman, W.A.H.; Dentener, F.J.; Van Der Hoek, K.W.; Olivier, J. A global high-resolution emission inventory for ammonia. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 1997, 11, 561–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Beusen, A.H.; Bouwman, A.F.; Heuberger, P.; Van Drecht, G.; Van Der Hoek, K. Bottom-up uncertainty estimates of global ammonia emissions from global agricultural production systems. Atmos. Environ. 2008, 42, 6067–6077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. European Environment Agency. Ammonia (NH3) Emissions. 2015. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/eea-32-ammonia-nh3-emissions-1/assessment-4 (accessed on 20 April 2020).
  15. Sommer, S.G.; Webb, J.; Hutchings, N.D. New Emission Factors for Calculation of Ammonia Volatilization From European Livestock Manure Management Systems. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2019, 3, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Van Der Hoek, K. Estimating ammonia emission factors in Europe. Atmos. Environ. 1998, 32, 315–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Koerkamp, P.G.; Metz, J.; Uenk, G.; Phillips, V.; Holden, M.; Sneath, R.; Short, J.; White, R.; Hartung, J.; Seedorf, J.; et al. Concentrations and Emissions of Ammonia in Livestock Buildings in Northern Europe. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1998, 70, 79–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Koziel, J.A.; Aneja, V.P.; Baek, B.-H. Gas-to-Particle Conversion Process Between Ammonia, Acid Gases, and Fine Particles in the Atmosphere. In Animal Agriculture and the Environment, National Center for Manure & Animal Waste Management White Papers; American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers: St Joseph, MI, USA, 2006; pp. 201–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Maurer, D.; Koziel, J.A.; Harmon, J.D.; Hoff, S.J.; Rieck-Hinz, A.M.; Andersen, D.S. Summary of performance data for technologies to control gaseous, odor, and particulate emissions from livestock operations: Air management practices assessment tool (AMPAT). Data Brief 2016, 7, 1413–1429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Webb, J.; Menzi, H.; Pain, B.; Misselbrook, T.; Dämmgen, U.; Hendriks, H.; Döhler, H. Managing ammonia emissions from livestock production in Europe. Environ. Pollut. 2005, 135, 399–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Eurich-Menden, B.; Döhler, H.; Dämmgen, U. Ammoniak-Emissionen der deutschen Landwirtschaft-technische Minderungspotenziale. Landtech.–Agric. Eng. 2004, 59, 162–163. [Google Scholar]
  22. Lin, X.-J.; Cortus, E.; Zhang, R.; Jiang, S.; Heber, A. Ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide and particulate matter emissions from California high-rise layer houses. Atmos. Environ. 2012, 46, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Pagliari, P.; Wilson, M.; He, Z. Animal Manure Production and Utilization: Impact of Modern Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. In Nitrification Inhibitors-Potentials and Limitations; American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 2020; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  24. Anderson, D.P.; Beard, C.W.; Hanson, R.P. The Adverse Effects of Ammonia on Chickens Including Resistance to Infection with Newcastle Disease Virus. Avian Dis. 1964, 8, 369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Miles, D.M.; Branton, S.L.; Lott, B.D.; Simmons, J.D. Quantified detriment of ammonia to broilers. Poult. Sci. 2002, 81, 54–55. [Google Scholar]
  26. Beker, A.; VanHooser, S.L.; Swartzlander, J.H.; Teeter, R.G. Atmospheric Ammonia Concentration Effects on Broiler Growth and Performance. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2004, 13, 5–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Donham, K.J.; Cumro, D.; Reynolds, S.J.; Merchant, J.A. Dose-Response Relationships Between Occupational Aerosol Exposures and Cross-Shift Declines of Lung Function in Poultry Workers. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2000, 42, 260–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Golbabaei, F.; Islami, F. Evaluation of Workers’ Exposure to Dust, Ammonia and Endotoxin in Poultry Industries at the Province of Isfahan, Iran. Ind. Health 2000, 38, 41–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kirychuk, S.P.; Senthilselvan, A.; A Dosman, J.; Juorio, V.; Feddes, J.J.R.; Willson, P.; Classen, H.; Reynolds, S.J.; Guenter, W.; Hurst, T.S. Respiratory symptoms and lung function in poultry confinement workers in Western Canada. Can. Respir. J. 2003, 10, 375–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Viegas, S.; Faísca, V.M.; Dias, H.; Clérigo, A.; Carolino, E.; Viegas, S. Occupational Exposure to Poultry Dust and Effects on the Respiratory System in Workers. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Part A 2013, 76, 230–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Nowak, A.; Bakuła, T.; Matusiak, K.; Gałęcki, R.; Borowski, S.; Gutarowska, B. Odorous Compounds from Poultry Manure Induce DNA Damage, Nuclear Changes, and Decrease Cell Membrane Integrity in Chicken Liver Hepatocellular Carcinoma Cells. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Nowak, A.; Matusiak, K.; Borowski, S.; Bakuła, T.; Opaliński, S.; Kołacz, R.; Gutarowska, B. Cytotoxicity of Odorous Compounds from Poultry Manure. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Donham, K.J. Respiratory Disease Hazards to Workers in Livestock and Poultry Confinement Structures. Semin. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 1993, 14, 49–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Donham, K.J.; Cumro, D.; Reynolds, S. Synergistic Effects of Dust and Ammonia on the Occupational Health Effects of Poultry Production Workers. J. Agromed. 2002, 8, 57–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Rylander, R.; Carvalheiro, M.F. Airways inflammation among workers in poultry houses. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2006, 79, 487–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Walker, J.; Robarge, W.P.; Shendrikar, A.; Kimball, H. Inorganic PM2.5 at a U.S. agricultural site. Environ. Pollut. 2006, 139, 258–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Regulation of the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development of February 15, 2010 on the requirements and conduct of behavior in keeping species of farm animals for which protection standards have been defined in the European Union legislation. J. Laws 2010, 56, 344.
  38. American Conference of Governmental Industrial. Hygienists Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) and Biological and Exposure Indices (BEIs); ACGIH: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2001; pp. 72–75. [Google Scholar]
  39. Ritz, C.W.; Fairchild, B.D.; Lacy, M.P. Implications of Ammonia Production and Emissions from Commercial Poultry Facilities: A Review. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2004, 13, 684–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Reece, F.N.; Lott, B.D.; Deaton, J.W. Low Concentrations of Ammonia During Brooding Decrease Broiler Weight. Poult. Sci. 1981, 60, 937–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Deaton, J.W.; Reece, F.N.; Lott, B.D. Effect of Atmospheric Ammonia on Pullets at Point of Lay. Poult. Sci. 1984, 63, 384–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Miles, D.M.; Branton, S.L.; Lott, B.D. Atmospheric Ammonia is Detrimental to the Performance of Modern Commercial Broilers. Poult. Sci. 2004, 83, 1650–1654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Vučemilo, M.; Matković, K.; Vinković, B.; Jakšić, S.; Granic, K.; Mas, N. The effect of animal age on air pollutant concentration in a broiler house. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 2008, 52, 170–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Carlile, F.S. Ammonia in Poultry Houses: A Literature Review. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 1984, 40, 99–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Giannadaki, D.; Giannakis, E.; Pozzer, A.; Lelieveld, J. Estimating health and economic benefits of reductions in air pollution from agriculture. Sci. Total. Environ. 2018, 622, 1304–1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Whyte, R.T. Aerial pollutants and the health of poultry farmers. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 1993, 49, 139–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hartung, E.; Jungbluth, T.; Bascher, W. Reduction of Ammonia and Odor Emissions from a Piggery with Biofilters. Trans. ASAE 2001, 44, 113–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Moore, P.A., Jr.; Daniel, T.C.; Edwards, D.R.; Miller, D.M. Evaluation of Chemical Amendments to Reduce Ammonia Volatilization from Poultry Litter. Poult. Sci. 1996, 75, 315–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Moore, P.A. Improving the sustainability of animal agriculture by treating manure with alum. In Environmental Chemistry of Animal Manure; He, Z., Ed.; Nova Science Publishers, Inc.: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 349–381. [Google Scholar]
  50. DeLaune, P.B.; Moore, P.A.; Daniel, T.C.; Lemunyon, J.L. Effect of chemical and microbial amendments on ammonia volatilization from composting poultry litter. J. Environ. Qual. 2004, 33, 728–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Li, H.; Xin, H.; Liang, Y.; Burns, R.T. Reduction of Ammonia Emissions from Stored Laying Hen Manure Through Topical Application of Zeolite, Al+ Clear, Ferix-3, or Poultry Litter Treatment. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2008, 17, 421–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Anderson, K.; Moore, J.P.A.; Martin, J.; Ashworth, A.J. Effect of a New Manure Amendment on Ammonia Emissions from Poultry Litter. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Santoso, U.; Ohtani, S.; Tanaka, K.; Sakaida, M. Dried Bacillus subtilis Culture Reduced Ammonia Gas Release in Poultry House. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 1999, 12, 806–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Steiner, C.; Das, K.; Melear, N.; Lakly, D. Reducing Nitrogen Loss during Poultry Litter Composting Using Biochar. J. Environ. Qual. 2010, 39, 1236–1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Maeda, K.; Toyoda, S.; Shimojima, R.; Osada, T.; Hanajima, D.; Morioka, R.; Yoshida, N. Source of Nitrous Oxide Emissions during the Cow Manure Composting Process as Revealed by Isotopomer Analysis of and amoA Abundance in Betaproteobacterial Ammonia-Oxidizing Bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2010, 76, 1555–1562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Borowski, S.; Gutarowska, B.; Brycki, B.; Kołacz, R. Method of Preparation of Biopreparation for Deodorization of Poultry Manure. Patent P-393863, 7 February 2011. [Google Scholar]
  57. Matusiak, K.; Borowski, S.; Opaliński, S.; Bakuła, T.; Kołacz, R.; Gutarowska, B. Impact of a microbial-mineral biopreparation on microbial community and deodorization of manures. Acta Biochim. Pol. 2015, 62, 791–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Borowski, S.; Matusiak, K.; Powałowski, S.; Pielech-Przybylska, K.; Makowski, K.; Nowak, A.; Rosowski, M.; Komorowski, P.; Gutarowska, B. A novel microbial-mineral preparation for the removal of offensive odors from poultry manure. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2017, 119, 299–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gałęcki, R.; Dąbrowski, M.; Bakuła, T.; Obremski, K.; Nowak, A.; Gutarowska, B. The Influence of the Mineral-Microbial Preparation on Ammonia Concentration and Productivity in Laying Hens Houses. Atmosphere 2019, 10, 751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. National Institutes of Health. National Research Council Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2010; pp. 1–246. [Google Scholar]
  61. Hill, L.; Vernon, H.M.; Hargood-Ash, D. The kata-thermometer as a measure of ventilation. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 1922, 93, 198–206. [Google Scholar]
  62. Mochida, T. A measurement method of air movement and radiant temperature with dry and wet Kata thermometers. Res. Rep. Dep. Engineet. Hokkaido Univ. 1978, 87, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  63. Kośla, T. Metodyka badań z higieny zwierząt i prewencji weterynaryjnej; Wydawnictwo SGGW: Warszawa, Poland, 2011; pp. 5–118. [Google Scholar]
  64. Winnicki, S.; Woyke, W.; Pleskot, K. Kodeks zaleceń i praktyk; IBMER: Warszawa, Poland, 2003; p. 46. [Google Scholar]
  65. The National Research Institute of Animal Production. Karty Informacyjne do założeń technologicznych produkcji zwierzęcej; Nr Karty 1.01.04; IBMER publisher: Warsaw, Poland, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  66. Gutarowska, B.; Matusiak, K.; Borowski, S.; Rajkowska, A.; Brycki, B. Removal of odorous compounds from poultry manure by microorganisms on perlite—bentonite carrier. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 141, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Dawkins, M.S.; A Donnelly, C.; Jones, T.A. Chicken welfare is influenced more by housing conditions than by stocking density. Natural 2004, 427, 342–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Yahav, S. Ammonia affects performance and thermoregulation of male broiler chickens. Anim. Res. 2004, 53, 289–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Deaton, J.W.; Reece, F.N.; Lott, B.D. Effect of Atmospheric Ammonia on Laying Hen Performance. Poult. Sci. 1982, 61, 1815–1817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Anderson, D.P.; Beard, C.W.; Hanson, R.P. Influence of Poultry House Dust, Ammonia, and Carbon Dioxide on the Resistance of Chickens to Newcastle Disease Virus. Avian Dis. 1966, 10, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kleven, S.H. Mycoplasmas in the etiology of multifactorial respiratory disease. Poult. Sci. 1998, 77, 1146–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Glisson, J.R. Bacterial respiratory disease of poultry. Poult. Sci. 1998, 77, 1139–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Nahm, K. Feed formulations to reduce N excretion and ammonia emission from poultry manure. Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98, 2282–2300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Adrizal, A.; Silaban, R.; Sumiati, S.; Yusrizal, Y.; Sumadja, W.A.; Yatno, Y.; Noferdiman, N.; Koh, K.; Rahman, M. Nitrogen and Ammonia Mitigation on Laying Hen Farms: Effects of Low-protein Diet and Manure Filtering. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2017, 16, 125–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Nimmermark, S.; Gustafsson, G. Influence of temperature, humidity and ventilation rate on the release of odour and ammonia in a floor housing system for laying hens. Agric. Engineer. Int. CIGR Ejournal 2005, 7, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  76. Elliott, H.A.; Collins, N.E. Factors Affecting Ammonia Release in Broiler Houses. Trans. ASAE 1982, 25, 0413–0418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ni, J. Mechanistic Models of Ammonia Release from Liquid Manure: A Review. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1999, 72, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Pagans, E.; Barrena, R.; Font, X.; Sánchez, A. Ammonia emissions from the composting of different organic wastes. Dependency on process temperature. Chemosphere 2006, 62, 1534–1542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  79. Sommer, S.; Zhang, G.; Bannink, A.; Chadwick, D.; Misselbrook, T.; Harrison, R.; Hutchings, N.; Menzi, H.; Monteny, G.; Ni, J.; 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]
  80. Koerkamp, P.G. Ammonia Emission from Aviary Housing Systems for Laying Hens: Inventory, Characteristics and Solutions. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  81. Demmers, T.G.M.; Hissink, M.G.; Uenk, G.H. The Drying of Poultry Manure in a Drying Tunnel and the Effect on Ammonia Emission; Rapport; IMAG-DLO: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  82. Kroodsma, W.; Scholtens, R.; Huis in’t Veld, J. Ammonia admissions from poultry housing systems. In Proceedings of the Seminar of the 2nd and 3rd Technical Section of the CIGR, Uppsala, Sweden, 20–22 September 1988. JTI Rapport 96(2): 7.1–7.13. [Google Scholar]
  83. Ahmed, M.; Ahmad, S.; Waldrip, H.M.; Ramin, M.; Raza, M.A. Whole Farm Modeling: A Systems Approach to Understanding and Managing Livestock for Greenhouse Gas Mitigation, Economic Viability and Environmental Quality. In Nitrification Inhibitors-Potentials and Limitations; ASA Special Publication 67; American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 2020; pp. 345–371. [Google Scholar]
Atmosphere 11 00743 g001 550
Figure 1. Changes in mesophilic microbial number during the experiment (p-value ≤ 0.05). Bars with different letters represent samples collected at 20-day intervals (number of measurments n = 5; 1—2 January, 2—22 January, 3—11 February, 4—3 March and 5—21 March). Group C—control group, group E—experimental group. Letters A and B above the bars are significantly different at p-value ≤ 0.05.
Figure 1. Changes in mesophilic microbial number during the experiment (p-value ≤ 0.05). Bars with different letters represent samples collected at 20-day intervals (number of measurments n = 5; 1—2 January, 2—22 January, 3—11 February, 4—3 March and 5—21 March). Group C—control group, group E—experimental group. Letters A and B above the bars are significantly different at p-value ≤ 0.05.
Atmosphere 11 00743 g001
Atmosphere 11 00743 g002 550
Figure 2. Differences in Campylobacter spp. number during the experiment (*—p-value ≤ 0.05). Samples were collected at 20-day intervals (number of measurements n = 5; 1—2 January, 2—22 January, 3—11 February, 4—3 March and 5—21 March).
Figure 2. Differences in Campylobacter spp. number during the experiment (*—p-value ≤ 0.05). Samples were collected at 20-day intervals (number of measurements n = 5; 1—2 January, 2—22 January, 3—11 February, 4—3 March and 5—21 March).
Atmosphere 11 00743 g002
Table
Table 1. Ammonia concentration, emission and microclimate parameters determined during the experiment in the control group (group C) and the experimental group (group E).
Table 1. Ammonia concentration, emission and microclimate parameters determined during the experiment in the control group (group C) and the experimental group (group E).
Measured Parameters
n = 56		 Control Group Experimental Group
x ¯ SDCI95%MEMOV x ¯ SDCI95%MEMOV
NH3 concentration (ppm)25.6811.657.96–14.0124.00m135.7114.435.143.96–6.8317.0018.0025.14
NH3 emission (g/h)3.581.701.26–2.583.36m135.712.020.680.50–1.042.382.5225.14
Temperature (°C)20.881.170.87–1.8221.2021.401.3921.280.980.72–1.5221.40m0.96
Humidity (%)55.796.124.52–9.4855.40m37.5052.804.433.27–6.8652.60m19.62
Air speed (m/s)0.0520.0310.02–0.050.050.060.0010.050.0480.02–0.050.0650.050.0002
Cooling (W/m2)1.850.180.13–0.281.871.980.0321.980.170.12–0.261.931.840.027
Legend: n—number of measurments; x—mean; SD—Standard deviation; CI 95—95% confidence interval; ME—median; MO—mode; V—variance; m—multiple.
Table
Table 2. Pearson’s correlation coefficient between NH3 concentration in air and microclimate parameters in turkey houses (r).
Table 2. Pearson’s correlation coefficient between NH3 concentration in air and microclimate parameters in turkey houses (r).
Correlations Between Environmental ParametersControl GroupExperimental Group
p-valuer Coefficientp-valuer Coefficient
NH3/temperature0.00090.740.190.44
NH3/humidity0.010.590.10.61
NH3/air speed0.0150.600.10.53
NH3/cooling0.0050.660.090.42
NH3/age0.110.750.35−0.31
r—Pearson’s correlation coefficient; n = 56; significance level set at p-value < 0.05.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gałęcki, R.; Dąbrowski, M.; Bakuła, T.; Obremski, K.; Baranowski, M.; Nowak, A.; Gutarowska, B. The Influence of the Mineral–Microbial Deodorizing Preparation on Ammonia Emission and Growth Performance in Turkey Production. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 743. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11070743

AMA Style

Gałęcki R, Dąbrowski M, Bakuła T, Obremski K, Baranowski M, Nowak A, Gutarowska B. The Influence of the Mineral–Microbial Deodorizing Preparation on Ammonia Emission and Growth Performance in Turkey Production. Atmosphere. 2020; 11(7):743. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11070743

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gałęcki, Remigiusz, Michał Dąbrowski, Tadeusz Bakuła, Kazimierz Obremski, Mirosław Baranowski, Adriana Nowak, and Beata Gutarowska. 2020. "The Influence of the Mineral–Microbial Deodorizing Preparation on Ammonia Emission and Growth Performance in Turkey Production" Atmosphere 11, no. 7: 743. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11070743

APA Style

Gałęcki, R., Dąbrowski, M., Bakuła, T., Obremski, K., Baranowski, M., Nowak, A., & Gutarowska, B. (2020). The Influence of the Mineral–Microbial Deodorizing Preparation on Ammonia Emission and Growth Performance in Turkey Production. Atmosphere, 11(7), 743. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11070743

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